Civil Rev. 5735 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. 5735 of 2008 Date of decision:31.7.2009 M/S Sanmati Rice (P) Ltd Petitioner vs Food Corporation of India and another Respondent Present Mr. HC Arora, Advocate Mr. KK Gupta, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. Vide order dated 23.2.2005, the suit filed by the petitioner for rendition of accounts against the respondents was returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC on account of the rights of the parties being governed by an Arbitration Clause, mentioned in the agreement dated 28.12.1995. It was not brought to the notice of the trial court that an Award dated 15.12.2000 had already been passed by the Arbitrator. Though the plaintiff- petitioner had participated in the arbitration proceedings culminating in Award dated 15.12.2000 yet it was not brought to the notice of the court when order dated 23.2.2005 was passed. A review application was filed in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.D.), Ganaur on 19.11.2005 for recalling order dated 23.12.2005 bringing it to the notice of the court that the Award had already been passed by the Arbitrator on 15.12.2000. Vide order dated 23.8.2008 the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.D) Ganaur dismissed the review application. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.8.2008, the petitioner has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on Civil Rev. 5735 of 2008 2 the ground that the order dated 23.2.2005 required review in view of the Award dated 15.12.2000 having already been passed by the Arbitrator. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the petitioner was a party in the proceedings, which culminated in passing of the Award dated 15.12.2000. The Award was challenged by the respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act as the entire claim of the respondents had not been granted. The petitioner had an opportunity to challenge the Award u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act in case some unreasonable claim had been granted to the respondents. It is also a fact that the petitioner had not sought reference to establish its claim against the respondents. On the asking of the court, it has been informed by the learned counsel for the parties that the Award has not been executed and is pending for execution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that a security of Rs.40,000/- and an amount of Rs. 2 lacs, which has already been paid by the petitioner deserves to be adjusted while settlement of the final claim. I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 23.8.2005 dismissing the review application of the petitioner. Dismissed. However, it will be open to the petitioner to file objections, in accordance with law, regarding the claims, which have been mentioned herein above, before the executing court. This order will not be deemed to be an expression of any opinion regarding the rights of the petitioner to claim the amounts, mentioned herein above. July 31 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE Civil Rev. 5735 of 2008 3