Heard.
The petitioner had earlier preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before this Court challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Bahraich that is the Principle Civil Court of original jurisdiction in the said district dated 27.09.2019 in proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred as Act, 1996) bearing no. 39 of 2014. The said petition was dismissed on the ground that against such an order, an appeal would be maintainable, accordingly, it was allowed to be withdrawn.
Now, this petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, contrary to the observation already made in the earlier order dated 09.12.2019 passed in petition no. 34084 (M/S) of 2019 under which an appeal would lie obviously under Section 37 of the Act, 1996.
As regards, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that an appeal under Section 37 lies only under the eventualities mentioned in Clause a, b and c whereas the facts of the case do not fall in any of the three eventualities mentioned therein, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. Firstly, a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari against an order passed by the Civil Court is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Radhay Shyam and Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and others reported in 2015 (5) SCC 423. Secondly, the order of the District Judge, Bahraich which is impugned herein is an order dismissing the appeal of the application of the petitioner filed under Section 34. Even if, it has been dismissed on the ground that no appeal is maintainable under Section 34 and what is maintainable is an application, nevertheless, the order dismissing the said proceeding is an order passed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 and this order amounts to refusing to set aside an arbitral award in exercise of power under Section 34, therefore, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable and it is accordingly rejected.
Except for the mention of the word appeal, the application which was filed was, for all purposes, an application under Section 34. This Court would not like to say anything more on this issue as it would dwell upon the validity of the impugned order which will have to be seen in the proceedings in appeal under Section 37.
The petition is dismissed as non-maintainable without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to maintain an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996.
The office is directed to return the certified copies of the orders filed by the petitioner along with this writ petition, as may be permissible as per rules of the Court.
Let a copy of this order be provided to the learned counsel for the parties within 24 hours itself on payment of usual charges.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Lokesh Kumar