IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 27.07.2010 C.R.No.4637 of 2010 Shamsher Singh Saini ...Petitioner Versus UHBVNL, Panchkula & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 19.05.2010, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for examining an expert in respect of consumption of the electricity, was declined. Earlier the dispute between the parties was referred to an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has given his Award on 21.08.2003. The petitioner has objected to such Award. During the pendency of such objections, the petitioner has sought to examine an expert in respect of consumption of electricity. The learned trial Court declined the said application for the reason that such application has been filed after the case is fixed for the evidence of the respondents and that sufficient opportunities were given to the petitioner to adduce his entire evidence. It is also found that the petitioner cannot be permitted to summon a witness, who is an official of the respondents, when the petitioner has failed to lead such evidence in affirmative. C.R.No.4637 of 2010 Though the reasoning given by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality, but it transpires that the objections against an Award are being entertained by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak. In terms of the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the objections against the Award of an Arbitrator, lies before the Principal Court of civil jurisdiction i.e. District Judge. Still further, the Award can be challenged only if it is against the public policy and such other grounds as are permissible under Section 34 of the Act. The ground taken by the petitioner to challenge the Award is, prima facie, not permissible in law. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. However, while dismissing the revision petition, it is ordered that the papers of Case No.15 Arb./22-03 be placed before the learned District Judge, Rohtak for entrustment to appropriate Court of jurisdiction. 27.07.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2