Court No. - 7
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2943 of 2021 Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Respondent :- Deepak Sharma And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed challenging the order of the sole arbitrator dated 24.11.2020 by which some of the interrogatories of the claimant has been allowed whereas some of them have been rejected and the order dated 24.02.2021 whereby the application of the petitioner for handwriting expert opinion qua certain handwritten documents having 24 pages have come to be rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the petitioner was doing field work only and the opposite party as partner of the firm was dealing with the account and bank account of the partnership firm and was maintaining ledger and he has produced more documents than ones shown to the petitioner during inspection being allowed by sole arbitrator and so it was necessary to prove them by handwriting expert and the interrogatories to that count made were necessary enough to be allowed.
Per contra, it is argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that the petitioner had himself opposed an application for submission of the income tax return taking the plea that it was not yet the stage when he could be asked to produce the same. He further argues that the interrogatories having not been rejected as a whole as some of them have been allowed, there is no manifest error in the order of the sole arbitrator.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records and the orders impugned, I do find that sole arbitrator has dealt with issue at length and has partially allowed the application of the petitioner for certain interrogatories which in his wisdom were justified enough. In so far as handwriting expert opinion is concerned, it has been held that from the perusal of the documents it was found that those documents did not beer dates etc. and so it was difficult to even form a prima facie opinion that the documents related to the cash transaction of the firm when the partnership was in existence so as to call for an handwriting expert opinion.
Be that as it may, since proceedings before the sole arbitrator are at preliminary stage, I do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by sole arbitrator, however, it is observed that as and when situation arises for leading evidence before the arbitrator, the arbitrator shall take pragmatic view of the matter as far as , handwriting expert opinion is concerned, as ultimately he has to arbitrate the matter between the parties and he has to ensure that no party stands prejudiced for technical reasons and it is expected that he would take appropriate decision at the time of evidence, if need be.
In such above view of the matter, this Court declines to interfere with the order of arbitrator at this stage, the application is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2021/Sanjeev