HARKISHAN DASS Vs. BALKISHAN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the point involved in both these applications is identical, these applications are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) These applications have been filed on behalf of Shri Suraj Prakash defendant No.2, and in these applications it has been prayed that the order regarding the appointment of Shri K.B. Andley, Advocate as arbitrator be revoked.

(3.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in the above suit Shri Bishan Lal Gupta was appointed as the arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties vide order dated 18th October, 1989 passed by this Court. Thereafter, an application IA 10728/90 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff wherein it was stated that there had been unreasonable delay in conducting the proceedings before the above mentioned Arbitrator and it was prayed that the authority of the said sole Arbitrator be revoked and a new Arbitrator in his place be appointed so that the matter in dispute between the parties pending since the year 1983 be disposed of within the prescribed time. During the pendency of this application vide order dated 7th July, 1992, the learned Counsel for the parties were directed to take appropriate instructions as to whether any other Arbitrator can be appointed by consent.