KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHAN Kumar, Government Contractor, petitioner herein, being aggrieved of the judgment rendered by Additional District Judge, Patiala, on September 20, 1991 vide which the appeal of the Municipal Committee, Patiala, respondent herein, against the order of Sub Judge 1st Class, Patiala, dated May 22, 1989 vide which the objections raised by it against the award of Superintending Engineer, Patiala Circle, P. W. D. (B. and R.), Patiala, were rejected, has come in this Court by way of the present revision petition.

(2.) THE facts as spelled out from the pleadings of the parties as also from the two judgments referred to above manifest that on July 15, 1985, the petitioner submitted a tender for the development of foot path in Rajindra Tank, Patiala and that his tender was accepted en July, 18. 1985. The agreement was signed between the petitioner and the Municipal Committee through its Executive Officer. One of the clauses of the agreement runs thus : -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner Mr. J. K. Sibal, Senior Advocate, contends that there was no objection raised by the respondent with regard to the execution of the agreement between the parties and in fact, it was conceded before the trial Court that such an agreement was there. He further contends that the finding of the Appellate Court holding that there was no agreement, primarily came into being on account of the concession made by the lawyer of the petitioner which concession was totally erroneous He has produced written agreement that came into being on July 18, 1985 which contains the cause of referring the matter to an Arbitrator having jurisdiction. That being the position, the learned counsel contends that the first reason to invalidate the award so taken notice of by the Appellate Court, had no basis whatsoever. On the second point, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case, time for pronouncing the award was extended by mutual consent of the parties and, therefore, the case law relied upon by the Appellate Court to hold the award as invalid, being not applicable the present revision deserves to succeed.