CIVIL REVISION NO.3143 OF 1986 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL REVISION NO.3143 OF 1986 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 23, 2008 State of Punjab and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Harbhajan Singh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. N. S. Pawar, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for the petitioners. Mr. Puneet Jindal & Mr. D. B. Singh, Advocates, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos.3143 of 1986 (State of Punjab and another Vs. Sh.Harbhajan Singh) , 3144 of 1986 (State of Punjab and another Vs. Surinder Kumar Sharma) , 3145 of 1986 (State of Punjab and another Vs. Bishan Dass) , 3146 of 1986 (State of Punjab and another Vs. Mohan Lal) , 3147 of 1986 (State of Punjab and another Vs. Gurminder CIVIL REVISION NO.3143 OF 1986 :{ 2 }: Singh) , 3148 of 1986 (State of Punjab and another Vs. Gulab Singh) , 3149 of 1986 (State of Punjab and another Vs. Nanak Chand) , 3150 of 1986 (State of Punjab and another Vs. Baij Nath) , and 3151 of 1986 (State of Punjab and another Vs. Ashok Kumar Partner Proprietor, M/s Jagdish Chander Ashok Kumar Depot Holder, Jalandhar City). The revisions are directed against the order passed by the then Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, who had allowed the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28.3.1985 passed by Senior Sub Judge, Jalandhar. The Senior Sub Judge, Jalandhar, had made the award dated 19.12.1983 given by the Arbitrator a Rule of the Court. The facts, which are taken from Civil Revision No.3143 of 1986, are that Harbhajan Singh, respondent, was allotted a depot under the authority No.300. One of the clause in the agreement was that in case of any dispute, the matter would be referred to the arbitration. The dispute in regard to the matter of running the depot arose between the parties and the same was referred to petitioner No.2, District Food and Supplies Controller, Jalandhar. He gave his award on 19.12.1983. An application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act was filed for filing the copy of the award in the Court. The respondent herein raised an objection against the award being made rule of the Court. The same was decided by Senior Sub Judge, Jalandhar, by making the award a rule of the Court. The respondent filed an appeal against the said order, which was allowed by the lower Appellate Court vide its order dated 14.5.1986, which CIVIL REVISION NO.3143 OF 1986 :{ 3 }: has been impugned in the present revision petitions. The Appellate Court found that the respondent had appeared as his own witness to give evidence that no opportunity was provided to him to lead evidence. The Appellate Court had perused the record and found that the arbitration proceedings were not properly conducted. It was also found that the Arbitrator had decided the case as if he was hearing the appeal. Apparently, the Arbitrator could not appreciate that he was detailed to arbitrate in the dispute and not to decide as a Court. It was accordingly pleaded before the Appellate Court that the award passed by the Arbitrator and so also the order making the same as a rule of the Court can not be sustained. Reference was made to some judgments to the effect that though the strict rule of evidence may not be applicable to the arbitration proceedings but the principle of natural justice would apply. Accordingly, the right of the party to lead evidence and to cross-examine witnesses could not have been curtailed or denied by the Arbitrator. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the Appellate court that this will reveal a misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator in conducting the proceedings as expected from Arbitrator,can not be faulted. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the order making the arbitration award a rule of the Court was set-aside. These revisions have been filed by the State to impugn the said order, which stand admitted. The present revision is of the year 1986. During the course of arguments, it could not be disputed CIVIL REVISION NO.3143 OF 1986 :{ 4 }: before me that the respondent in all the said revision petitions are running Depots. Obviously, there has been no cause of complaint thereafter. No useful purpose would now be served in directing any fresh arbitration. Even otherwise, the impugned order, apparently, is not found suffering from any infirmity, which would call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The State would be at liberty to proceed against the respondents in accordance with law in case they violate any of the condition of the agreement in future. All the revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. May 23,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE