ORDER : 1. The present application has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the ‘Act of 1996’) for appointment of an arbitrator to settle the dispute between the applicant and the respondent. 2. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that he was allotted the work of “Construction of Road Cutting Pathimahala to Ikhal Rd 6300 to 6645” vide allotment order dated 17.02.2006 for an amount of Rs. 5,32,788/-. 3. The applicant contends that he completed the work on 18.06.2009 which was duly recorded in the MB 52 and submitted his final bill to the respondent for payment but was paid only Rs. 2,25,663/- in parts and the balance amount had not been released. According to the applicant, an amount of Rs. 3,07,125/- along with interest is due, which has not been paid in spite of repeated requests to the respondent to that effect. The applicant contends that the applicant served a legal notice to the respondent on 01.08.2017 for payment of the said outstanding amount and informed the respondent to refer the dispute to the arbitrator in terms of Clause 55 of the General Conditions of Contract if the said claimed amount is disputed by the respondent. According to the applicant, since there has been no response from the respondent, the applicant approached this Court by filing this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator. 4. This application has been contested by the respondent contending, inter-alia, that the application filed under the aforesaid Act of 1996 is not maintainable as the arbitration clause refers to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and at the time of filing of the said application, the said Act of 1996 was not applicable in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. However, we need not be detained by this objection in as much as at present, after the implementation of the Jammu and Kashmir Re-organization Act, 2019, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is now applicable in the UT of Jammu and Kashmir. 5. However, as regards the second objection raised by the respondent that the present application is hopelessly time-barred, there appears to be substance in the said contention. 6. According to the applicant himself, the work was completed on 18.06.2009, and he also submitted the final bill. 5. However, as regards the second objection raised by the respondent that the present application is hopelessly time-barred, there appears to be substance in the said contention. 6. According to the applicant himself, the work was completed on 18.06.2009, and he also submitted the final bill. As per the applicant, though part payment was made, a sum of Rs. 3,07,125/- remained outstanding. If the work was completed and the final bill was submitted on 18.06.2009 and yet, no full payment was made, the cause of action arose on 18.06.2009 for claiming the full amount and the limitation would start running from thereon which would expire on 17.06.2012. However, nothing has been mentioned as to what steps had been taken by the applicant during that period to claim the balance amount and why he approached this Court only on 28.03.2018 after the period of limitation expired on 17.06.2012. The applicant states that he served a legal notice dated 01.08.2017 to the respondent invoking the arbitration clause. However, he has not stated anything or explained what he was doing during this period from 17.06.2012 till 01.08.2017 or 28.03.2018. Thus, this Court is of the view that the claim made by the applicant is demonstratively time-barred in which event, this application for invoking the arbitration clause is also not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, this application is dismissed as not maintainable being time-barred.