VED PARKASH KAPOOR Vs. KRISHAN KANTA TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition, an order dated 20.5.1996 of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Amritsar vide which he dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter called "the defendant") for dis-allowing the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter called the "plaintiff") from examining the arbitrator as a witness in rebuttal has been challenged.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arbitrator cannot be summoned as a witness in routine unless cogent grounds for his examination within permissible limits are made out. The order of the trial court is liable to be set aside, according to the learned counsel, on the ground that it has not given any cogent reasons for allowing the plaintiff to summon the arbitrator as a witness. The trial Court, according to the counsel, has failed to exercise its proper jurisdiction. He has cited , State of Orissa v. Naranjan, 1989 3 JT 366 Swain to substantiate his arguments.

(3.) The relevant portion of the order of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar vide which he has ordered the summoning of the arbitrator is reproduced as under :