AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST Vs. BAWA RAM CONTRACTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the request of the counsel for the parties Civil Revision is taken up for arguments. I have heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against order dated October 13,1989, pissed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar dismissing the appeal filed against Judgment and decree dated December 20, 1988, passed by Sub-Judge I Class, Amritsar. A composite order was passed by the trial Court on that day relating to dismissal of objections filed to the Award submitted by the Arbitrator and making the Award rule of the Court Bawa Ram is a contractor. He raised some construction at the instance of Amritsar Improvment Trust and dispute having arisen between the parties regarding the aforesaid contract, the matter was referred to Narinder Kumar Vij, Superintending, Engineer, Amritsar Circie, Public Works Department, (B and R), Amritsar, for arbitration. The Award was announced by the Arbitrator on April 29 1986, which was submitted to the Court. When objections were filed, after pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : (1) Whether an Award dated 29-4-1986 is liable to be set aside as alleged in the objection petition ? OPO (2) Whether the objection petition is barred by time. (3) Relief.

(3.) IT has bee a argued that when composite order was passed by the trial Court dismissing the objections filed to the Award made by tie Arbitrator as well as making the Award the rule of the Court, appeal was maintainable under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act treating the aforesaid order to be a decree as well as under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the order vide which objections filed to the Award were dismissed, n perusal of these provisions I find that different grounds are mentioned on which such orders could be challenged in appeal. From the grounds of appeal taken up before the lower appellate Court I find that some grounds were taken for setting aside the order of the trial Court vide which objections were dismissed. Certain facts were mentioned as to how the objections filed by the Improvement Trust to the Award were within time. Those have not been gone into by the lower appellate Court and the appeal was dismissed solely on the ground that it was not maintainable on the grounds mentioned under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act where a composite order is passed by the trial Court in arbitration matter dismissing the objection and making rule of the Court on appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act would be competent on the grounds mentioned therein. This is so held in Jaykumar Jain and Ors. v. Om Parkash and Anr. , A. I. R. 1970 M. P. 119 and Ariyur Mohammad Habeebur Rahman and Ors. v. Ansuri Varamma (died), A. I. R. 1974 A. P. 1133. In the facts of the case in hand the appeal could not be dismissed as not being maintainable. It was immaterial if wrong section was mentioned under which the appeal was maintainable or no section was mentioned. This may be due to inadvertence of the counsel or by a bona fide mistake However, the litigant is not to suffer on that account.