IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6654 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 02, 2008 Pawan Kumar and another .....Petitioners Versus The Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. An arbitration dispute arose between the petitioners and respondents No. 1 and 2 and an Arbitrator was, thereafter, appointed on 4.4.2002. On being summoned, the petitioners filed their objections through registered post on 29.4.2002. After, the Arbitrator passed an award, respondents No. 1 and 2 applied for execution of the same, which was objected to, once again, by the petitioners by filing their written objections on 29.4.2002. Vide impugned order, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha dismissed those objections. Hence, the present revision filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that Shri Amarjit Singh, a retired I.A.S. was appointed as sole Arbitrator on 4.4.2002 by the Managing Director, PUNSUP, Chandigarh. However, the notice in this Civil Revision No. 6654 of 2008 -2- regard was received by the petitioners only after the appointment of the sole Arbitrator. The appointment of the sole Arbitrator was against the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioners were not provided any opportunity of hearing by the Arbitrator, who passed an ex parte award. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the objections filed by the petitioners be accepted. Once the Arbitrator has already given the award, it was too late in the day for the petitioners to challenge the appointment of Shri Amarjit Singh, a retired I.A.S. as the sole Arbitrator. During the execution of the proceedings, learned lower Court was required to execute the award rendered by the Arbitrator. It could not have gone beyond the same. Learned lower Court vide impugned order rightly held that the executing Court had to operate in a limited periphery for executing the award as it stood. It could not go beyond the award by accepting the objections of the petitioners. The impugned order passed by the learned lower Court in declining the objections of the petitioners against the execution of the award does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The revision is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 02, 2008 JUDGE satish