M/S J.J.H. INDUSTRIES LIMITED, CALCUTTA Vs. THE SECRETARY, PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THE MALL, PATIALA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -plaintiff has directed this revision petition against the order dated 30th November, 1987 of Shri N.D. Bhatara, Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Patiala, closing its evidence.

(2.) IN brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that M/s J.J.H. industries Limited, filed petition under Sections 8, 9, 11 and 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940, against the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala, as well as against Mr S.S. Sarwal, Arbitrator respondent No. 2, for declaring the award of the Arbitrator respondent No. 2 as invalid and void on various grounds. It is noteworthy that Shri Sarwal was working as Chief Engineer with the Electricity Board at the time of the institution of these proceedings. This application was resisted by the respondents on various grounds and they had engaged a common counsel Shri D.C. Khanna. Various issues were framed in these proceedings on 6th May, 1986 and thereafter the matter remained pending for the evidence of the plaintiff on different dates. The petitioner then examined one of its Directors and last opportunity was granted to produce the Arbitrator as witness for 30th November, 1987, but on the failure of the petitioner to effect service on the said witness, the impugned order was passed.

(3.) THE above -referred facts clearly show that the petitioner being a private limited Company could not be held responsible for effecting service on a retired Chief Engineer of the Electricity Board, especially when the latter himself was a party to the original proceedings and represented by a counsel Shri D.C. Khanna. Thus, the trial Court could have easily directed the counsel for respondent No. 2 to produce the respondent as a witness instead of burdening the petitioner with the responsibility of effecting his service. Keeping in view the well known dictum that justice should not only be done but it appears to have been done, so that the public at large should not lose confidence in the judicial set up entrusted with the onerous duty of the administration of justice, it transpires that the impugned order had certainly resulted in mis -carriage of justice as a party is being restrained from adducing material evidence and that too of an Arbitrator who himself happened to be a party to these proceedings. Under these circumstances, there is no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order of the trial Court was justifiable as the proceedings were lingering on since 6th May, 1986 for the evidence of the petitioner.