SAIF-UD-DIN JAN Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to the reference made by the court of Sub Judge (C.J.M.) Srinagar the arbitrator Shri Pirzada Ghulam Nabi who was called upon to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties entered upon the reference and made the award on 12 -8 -75 which he filed in the court on 2 -9 -1975. Notice of filing of the award as required by Sec, 14(2) of the Arbitration Act was given to the parties. The parties filed their respective objections. In the objections filed by the respondent No. 1 allegations were made that the arbitrator had misconducted himself in conducting the proceedings. He did not give adequate opportunity to the respondent No. 1 to put -forth his case before him. He did not even hear the respondent No. 1 in the matter. Reliance has been placed by him upon the information given to him by the respondent No. 2. He did not take respondent No. 2 into confidence in respect of that information and the documents exhibited and produced before him by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 was not even permitted to adduce evidence in the case. The arbitrator gave the award which is based on extraneous considerations. After filing the objections respondent No. 1 sought to produce evidence in order to prove the allegations made by him. An objection was taken by the petitioner herein before the court below that the court could not make an enquiry and go into these matters by asking the respondent No. 1 to produce evidence in the case.

(2.) AFTER hearing the counsel for the parties the learned court below did not agree with respondent No. 2 that it could not permit the respondent No. 1 to produce evidence. He, therefore, allowed the respondent No. 1 to produce his evidence in support of the objections. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner respondent No. 2 has come up in revision before this court.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties,