SANJEEV BUILDERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant civil revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda whereby appeal preferred by the Union of India against order dated 28.01.1998 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bathinda whereby award has been made Rule of Court has been partly allowed and award relating to claim nos.3 and 24 has been set aside.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are to the effect that petitioner-M/s. Sanjeev Builders (hereinafter to be referred as 'contractor') was entrusted the construction work by the respondents pertaining to contract agreement No.CEBTZ-19 of 1980-81, Provn. of OTM ACCN for Engineer Park at Bathinda. The contract agreement contained a clause providing for settlement of dispute by arbitration. Certain disputes that arose between the parties in regard to the said contract were referred to the sole arbitrator. The claimant made several claims and ultimately the Arbitrator made Award dated 20.03.1991. Thereafter, the contractor made application under Sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for making Award dated 20.03.1991 Rule of the Court which was allowed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Bathinda vide judgment and decree dated 28.01.1998 and objections filed by respondents were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved with the order dated 28.01.1998, the Union of India and others challenged the judgment and decree dated 28.01.1998 before learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda. Vide impugned order dated 28.01.1998, learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda partly accepted the appeal and Award in respect of claim no.3 whereby the Arbitrator awarded amount of Rs.2775-57 on account of provisions of timbering to the trenches upto 1.5 meter depth and claim no.24 whereby an amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded to the contractor on account of damages suffered by delay in issuing stores under Schedule-B and delay in the decision etc., has been set aside.

(3.) It is pertinent to mention here that the instant revision petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned Appellate Court in respect of claim no.24 only. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.