Civil Revision No.454 of 2009 ..3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.454 of 2009 Date of Decision: 19.11.2009 Haryana Seeds Development Corporation ....Petitioner Versus M/s Zed Security ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.S.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondent. * * * Sabina,J.(Oral) Respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.30,470/-. Petitioner-defendant moved an application that the dispute be referred to the arbitrator in terms of Clause 6 of agreement between the parties (Annexure P-4). Vide the impugned order, the application for referring the dispute to the arbitrator was dismissed. Hence the present revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merit. The learned trial court while dismissing the application has observed as under:- “After carefully perusing the case file and going through the Civil Revision No.454 of 2009 ..3. respective submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, this court is of the opinion that as per the agreement clause 6 clearly provides “Any loss that occurs due to the negligence of the Guardsmans for non- checking/incoming material or searching of the personal coming/ going out of the factory, will be responsibility of the party of the first part and the compensation for loss will be decided through arbitration under the provision of the Arbitration Act and the sole arbitrator shall be the Managing Director of HSDC Ltd or his nominee. Thus in the present case since an FIR has already been registered and the same has been cancelled as there is no negligence of the guards mans which was found. Therefore, no ground for referring the case as per clause 6 of the agreement arises as there is no question for compensation due to the negligence of the guards man. Thus, in the present case the matter is not within the purview of the arbitration clause and therefore, the present application is hereby dismissed. However, this order of mine will have no bearing on the merits of the case.” Since the loss had not been occurred due to the negligence of the guardsmans as was found after investigation of the case in FIR no.21 dated 14.2.2005 registered at Police Station Pataudi. The learned trial court rightly held that the matter was not within the purview of the arbitration clause 6. Hence the impugned order does not suffer from Civil Revision No.454 of 2009 ..3. any material irregularity or illegality which would warrant interference by this court in revision. This petition is dismissed. 19.11.2009 (SABINA) Seema-II Judge