DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ALKARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral). The two questions which arise for consideration in this First Appeal are (1) Whether the Engineer-Member of the appellant No. 1 can be directed to appoint an arbitrator and to refer to him the dispute between the parties, and (2) whether the provisions of Order .11 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to arbitration proceedings.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that an agreement had been entered into between the parties, whereby the respondent. had to execute some work. The said agreement contained an arbitration clause, namely. Clause 25 which reads as under :

(3.) WE are in full agreement with the aforesaid principle. The administration of justice would require that there should not be multiplicity of proceedings and the parties should not be permitted to raise disputes over and over again once the disputes have been settled either by a pronouncement by a court of competent jurisdiction or by an award by an arbitrator. WE, however, do notice that the Calcutta High Court did not consider the applicability of principles of Order 6 Rule 1-7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Once the suit, which is filed, has been decided, the provisions of Order II Rule 2 become applicable. After the trial of the suit if any claim, which could have been made, has not been made, then it is deemed that the same has been relinquished and a fresh suit in respect to the said claim cannot be filed. During the pendency of the suit, however, the plaintiff has a right to apply for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 in order to enlarge the scope of the suit and, if he so desires, raise additional pleas praying for a larger relief than what he had prayed for originally. WE are of the opinion that just as a court while exercising its power under Order 6 Rule 17. has the jurisdiction to allow amendment, in the arbitration proceedings as well the same principles should be invoked. It is true that if an award has been made then the principles analogous to Order 11 Rule 2 would apply and after the making Of the award a claimant cannot seek to raise a dispute which he ought to or could have raised earlier. This being so, it would indeed be unfair and unjust not to invoke the principles of Order 6. Rule 17 during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings.