Anand, C.J.
1. At the out set Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this appeal has been wrongly styled as L.P. A. and that it is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act and that it be so treated. We grant the prayer.
2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge inArbitration Application No. 150 of 1981 dt. April 8, 1987 and has arisen in the following circumstances :--
Respondent No. I, who though served in this appeal is absent, flied a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act seekingdirection from the Court to the respondents in the application to file arbitration agreement in the court and to refer the dispute between the parties to the sole arbitrator. Objections were filed and besides other objections it was stated on behalf of the appellant that there was no arbitration agreement in existence between the parties and, therefore neither the arbitration agreement could be directed to be filed in the court nor the dispute referred to any arbitrator.
3. From the pleadings of the parties, on 16th Dec. 1982, the following issue was raised : --
' Is there no arbitration agreement existing between the parties out of which the alleged disputes are said to have arisen? O.P.R.'
4. The respondent was directed to lead evidence first. But it transpires that on 20th Dec. 1985, the parties submitted before the learned single Judge that they did not wish to lead evidence and the case was, therefore, listed for hearing. Vide order impugned in the appeal, the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was allowed and a direction was issued referring the dispute to the Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Jammu.
5. Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the learned single Judge did not decide the issue raised on 16-12-1982 and no finding whatsoever has been recorded by him regarding the existence of agreement between the parties and as such the judgment is unsustainable.
6. A persual of the impugned order bears out I he contention of Mr. Nanda. The learned single Judge has not recorded any finding on the issue. He has not even noticed, let alone considered and discussed, that issue. That, apart, we find that the order passed by the learned single Judge under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act also suffers from another legal infirmity inasmuch as while directing the dispute to be referred for arbitration to the Chief Engineer Public Health Engineering Department, Jammu, no direction was issued for filing' the arbitration agreement in the court, which direction is a sine qua non for allowing the application, under Section 20 of the Act and referring the dispute to the arbitrator. The scope of enquiry under Section 20 of the Act is a limited one and is normally to be confined to an enquiry as to whether there is a written agreement, the terms whereof provide for arbitration and as to whether there was a disputeraised in terms of the agreement. The order to be made would depend upon the result of the enquiry. No such enquiry was held by the learned single Judge and that is a legal infirmity.
7. In view of the infirmities, noticed above, the impugned order and judgment cannot be sustained. The same is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the learned single Judge for its fresh disposal in accordance with law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
8. I agree.