STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. JAI BHUSHAN MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for preponing the hearing of the appeal, which is now listed for 21.02.2020.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that on account of a dispute that arose between the parties, the matter was referred to Arbitrator in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. Respondent No.1 preferred a claim petition before the Arbitrator for recovery of its dues for work done, which claim was allowed. Against the said award, the appellant herein filed objections under Section 34 of the Act before the Addl. District Judge, Sangrur. Notice was issued and matter was contested between the parties. Respondent No.1 herein took the preliminary objection that there was non- compliance of provisions of Section 34(5) of the Act, which stipulates the service of prior notice upon the other party and filing of affidavit endorsing such compliance, before filing objections under Section 34 of the Act. The Addl. District Judge, Sangrur, without going into the question as to whether the objections were sustainable, dismissed them holding that there was non- compliance of Section 34(5) of the Act, meaning thereby, no prior notice had been served upon respondent No.1. Aggrieved against the said order, the instant appeal has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, learned DAG Punjab for the appellant would submit that the impugned order, so passed, is liable to be set aside since compliance of Section 34(5) of the Act is not mandatory as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and others vs. Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Samiti, 2018(5) RCR (Civil) 332.