NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE Vs. PRIYA CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) rough IA 215/94, the respondent has filed objections challenging the validity of the award of the Arbitrator before whom the respondent/objector was the claimant; Contentious operative part of the award is to the following effect:-

(2.) The Arbitrator was persuaded to pass such an award for the reason that inspite of the service of so many notices to the claimant, the claimant neither turned up nor appeared before the Arbitrator nor gave any reasons for his non-cooperation till he accepted the notice dated 30/04/1991 wherein he showed his inability to appear and agreed for extension of time for another four months. In view of this the Arbitrator observed that this conduct on the part of the respondent shows that that he is not interested in finalisation of his claim and as such he had no other option but to proceed ex parte.

(3.) I am afraid the procedure adopted by the Arbitrator was illegal as in the given circumstances the only option available with the Arbitrator was to dismiss the claim of the respondent either in default or for non-prosecution or on merits. As per provisions of Rule 8 Order 9 of Civil Procedure Code where the defendant appears and the plaintiff does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order that the suit be dismissed unless the defendant admits the claim, or part thereof, in which case the Court shall pass a decree against the defendant upon such admission and where part only of the claim has been admitted, shall dismiss the suit so far as it relates to the remainder.