The parties are agreed that no other clause in the agreements is relevant for our present purpose. Disputes arose between the appellants and the respondents in respect of some claims arising from the said contracts. The appellants requested the respondents to refer the disputes to the arbitration of the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh. The iespondents declined to agree to make the reference in question. Thereafter the appellants moved the Senior Sub Judge, District Sirmur Nihan under s. 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) for ordering-the respondents to file the agreements in question in his court and for referring the disputes to the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh for arbitration. The learned Sub-Judge accepted these applications and directed the respondents to file the agreements in question into his court. Thereafter he referred the disputes to the arbitration of the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh. The Judicial Commissioner, in our opinion rightly declined to act as an arbitrator. Thereafter the learned subordinate judge was moved to appoint some other arbitrator in place of the Judicial Commissioner. The respondents opposed that prayer on the ground that arbitration clause did not privide for such an appointment. The learned subordinate judge accepted that contention and dismissed the applications. As against that decision the appellants went up in revisions to the Judicial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh. · The Judicial Commissioner following an earlier decision of that court in - District Co-operative Federation Ltd. v. Khub Chand(!) dismissed the revision petitions holding that under the agreements no reference for arbitration can be made to anyone other than the named authority. The question for decision is whether the interpretation placed by the courts below on the re· Jevant provision in the arbitration agreements is correct.
