1. The present Civil Revision Application u/s.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner herein – original applicant to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30/04/2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhidham-Kutch below Exh.1 in I.R.No.164 of 2000, by which, learned Judge has dismissed the said application submitted by the petitioner to condone the delay in submitting the objections against the award declared by the sole Arbitrator, has been rejected.
2. It appears that there was a dispute between the respondents herein and the petitioner herein, which was referred to the learned Arbitrator under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It appears that learned Arbitrator declared the award dated 31/07/2000 and held the claim Nos.1, 2 and 5 in favour of respondent No.1 herein. It appears that the petitioner had some objections against the award declared by sole Arbitrator with respect to claim No.5 and interest awarded thereon and, therefore, the petitioner submitted objections before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhidham-Kutch against the award declared by the sole Arbitrator more particularly with respect to claim No.5 and interest awarded thereon under Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996.
It appears that there was a delay of 20 days in submitting the objections against the award declared by sole Arbitrator and, therefore, the petitioner submitted I.R. No.164/2000 requesting learned Judge to condone the delay. Learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhidham-Kutch by order dated 30/04/2002 despite holding that the objections were required to be submitted before learned Principal District Court, considered the said application on merits also and held that no sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay of 20 days in submitting the objections against the award declared by the sole Arbitrator and consequently learned Judge dismissed the said application. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 30/04/2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhidham-Kutch in not condoning the delay of 20 days in submitting the objections against the award declared by sole Arbitrator, the petitioner herein has preferred the present Civil Revision Application u/s.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Mr.Rajpuriya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that once the learned Judge has held that objections against the award were maintainable only before learned Principal District Court, Gandhidham-Kutch, in that case, learned Judge ought to have returned the said application to the petitioner to present it before the concerned Court having jurisdiction and ought not to have decided and disposed of the delay condonation application in submitting the objections, which is not maintainable before the said Court. Therefore, it is submitted that as such the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court is without jurisdiction. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Civil Revision Application and to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court and return the said application submitted by the petitioner with objections to the petitioner to present it before the concerned Court having jurisdiction.
4. Mr.Shivang Shukla, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that as the Trial Court was of the opinion that delay of 20 days is not satisfactorily explained and, therefore, when the learned Judge has dismissed the application submitted by the petitioner to condone delay of 20 days, no illegality has been committed by the learned Trial Court in dismissing the said application.
5. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. It is required to be noted that the petitioner submitted objections against the award declared by the sole Arbitrator with respect to claim No.5 and interest thereon. However, there was delay of 20 days in submitting the objections, therefore, application was submitted to condone the delay. However, it is required to be noted that the application was submitted in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhidham-Kutch. Admittedly and even as held by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhidham-Kutch, the objections against the award declared by sole Arbitrator were required to be submitted before learned Principal District Court and objections before learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhidham- Kutch were not maintainable. Therefore, when learned Judge was of the opinion that objections submitted by the petitioner against the award declared by sole arbitrator were not maintainable before him, in that case, he ought not have decided and disposed of delay condonation application, which was not maintainable before the said Court. The only course open to the learned Judge was to return the said application to the petitioner to present it before the concerned Judge having jurisdiction. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 30/04/2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhidham-Kutch in entertaining the delay condonation application, is wholly without jurisdiction.
6. In view of the above, the present Civil Revision Application succeeds and the impugned order dated 30/04/2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhidham- Kutch below Exh.1 in I.R.No.164 of 2000 is hereby quashed and set aside and learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhidham- Kutch is hereby directed to return the said I.R.No.164 of 2000 and objections submitted by the petitioner against the award declared by the sole Arbitrator, to the petitioner to present it before the concerned Court having jurisdiction. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks on producing the certified copy of the present order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.
[M.R.SHAH,J] *dipti