A at Dalbhumgarh. The tender of the respondent, Surjeet Singh Atwal, was accepted and the agreement was executed on August 19 ·1944. Clause 25 of the agreement provided for the settlemnt of the disputes by reference to the arbitration of the Superintending Engineer of the Circle for the time being, according to law. The res a1lcged .that he had completed the work entrusted· to him under the contract and made a claim of B Rs. 50,000 on the basis of his last bill. On the other hand the· Union of India made a demand against the contractor for a sum of Rs. 5,09, 164 on the ground that the amount had been overpaid to the respondent. Ignoring the arbitration clause respondent filed a suit on the original side of the Calcutta High Court for the recovery of Rs. 50,000, being suit no. 531 of 1951. The c Uriion of India made an application under s. 34 of the Act for the stay of the suit. The suit was consequently stayed and the matter was referred to the arbitration of the Superintending Engineer, Calcutta Aviation Circle, C.P.W.D. Calcutta. Before the arbitrator the Union of India made its counter-claim for a ~um of Rs. 5,09,164. The contractor objected to the entertainD ment of the countet'-claim. The stay of the suit which was granted by the Calcutta High Court was later on vacated. Pending the suit of the respondent in the Calcutta High Court, the Union of India filed an application under s. 20 of the Act in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi for getting the agreement of reference filed in the Court and for making the reference of the disputes between the parties to the arbitration of the E Superintending Engineer, Central Circle No. 1, C.P.W.D. Calcutta. The respondent opposed the petition mainly on the sround that the court of Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. It was contended that the appellant had filed an application under s. 34 of the Act for stay of the suit filed in the Calcutta High Court, and, thereF fore any subsequent application relating to arbitration under the agreement should be filed in the Calcutta High Court. By its judg.ment dated January 29, 1963 the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi allowed the application of the appellant and ordered that . the disputes between the parties be referred to. the Superintending Engineer, Calcutta Circle No. 1, C.P.W.D. The learned G Subordinate Judge held that the contract of the parties was concluded at Delhi llnd it was signed at Delhi on behalf of the respondent and, therefore, the Delhi court had jurisdiction to try the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, First Class the respondent filed an appeal under s. 39 of the Act in the Punjab High Court. By his judgment dated January 11, 1965 D. K. Mahajlln J., allowed the appeal and set aside the H order ofl the SUbordinate Judge, First Class and dismissed the applicatihn of. the 'appellan.t 'oo the ground that the Delhi court had no Jurisdiction to entertain an application under s. 20 of the !<ct.
