Civil Revision No. 5912 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- 1. Civil Revision No. 5912 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 14.9.2010 Union of India & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Ram Sarup & Ors. ... Respondents 2. Civil Revision No. 5913 of 2010 (O&M) Union of India & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Amrik Singh & Ors. ... Respondents 3. Civil Revision No. 5914 of 2010 (O&M) Union of India & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Jasbir Chand & Ors. ... Respondents 4. Civil Revision No. 5915 of 2010 (O&M) Union of India & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Veena & Ors. ... Respondents 5. Civil Revision No. 5916 of 2010 (O&M) Civil Revision No. 5912 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Union of India & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Chuhar & Ors. ... Respondents 6. Civil Revision No. 5917 of 2010 (O&M) Union of India & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Sushil Kumar & Ors. ... Respondents 7. Civil Revision No. 5918 of 2010 (O&M) Union of India & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Raj Rani & Ors. ... Respondents 8. Civil Revision No. 5919 of 2010 (O&M) Union of India & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Rajinder Pal & Ors. ... Respondents 9. Civil Revision No. 5920 of 2010 (O&M) Union of India & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Shashi & Ors. ... Respondents Civil Revision No. 5912 of 2010 (O&M) -3- 10. Civil Revision No. 5921 of 2010 (O&M) Union of India & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Amar Singh & Ors. ... Respondents 11. Civil Revision No. 5922 of 2010 (O&M) Union of India & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Shiv Ram & Ors. ... Respondents 12. Civil Revision No. 5923 of 2010 (O&M) Union of India & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Narinder Singh & Ors. ... Respondents 13. Civil Revision No. 5924 of 2010 (O&M) Union of India & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus Bimla Devi & Ors. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Rishi Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) These petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are filed by petitioners for setting aside the orders dated 14.8.2010 passed by District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby their applications for deciding their Civil Revision No. 5912 of 2010 (O&M) -4- objection petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') without recording any evidence, were dismissed. The petitioners filed a number of petitions under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside the awards dated 15.5.2009 made by the Arbitrator- cum-Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The petitions so filed were contested by the respondents by filing the replies. On the pleading of the parties issues were framed and thereafter the petitions were postponed for recording the evidence of the petitioners. They moved applications before the District Judge for deciding their petitions in terms of the High Court Rules and Orders (Rule 2 and 3, High Court Rules and Order, Part – 2, Chapter-IV, Vol. 3), which does not require the production of any evidence for deciding the petitions under Section 34 and that the Court may proceed to decide the matter without recording evidence. They pleaded in the applications that the main petitions can well be decided whithout taking recourse to the recording of evidence and no prejudice shall be caused to any of the parties as the matter in question can be decided on the basis of the perusal of the records of the Arbitrator. Those applications were contested by the respondents by filing their replies. They stated that the pleadings can only be proved by way of evidence and that the petitioners in fact have no evidence and as such an adverse inference can be drawn. After hearing learned counsel for both the sides those applications were dismissed, vide afore-said orders. Those orders have been assailed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that there is no requirement under the provisions Civil Revision No. 5912 of 2010 (O&M) -5- of Section 34 of the Act for the production of evidence and the District Judge has only to go through the records of the arbitrator for deciding the main petitions. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in Sandeep Kumar Vs. Dr. Ashok Hans & Anr. 2004(3) Arb. LR 306 (Delhi). At the time of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners could not spell out the grounds on which the awards have been challenged under Section 34 of the Act. It will depend upon the nature of the grounds as to whether those require some evidence for decision or not to succeed. In the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act, a party is required to prove the ground/grounds so taken by him. It is not ineach and every case that the finding can be recorded only on the basis of the records of the Arbitrator. In some cases the evidence is certainly required. No doubt it was held by the Delhi High Court, in the above said ruling, that there is no requirement under the provisions of Section 34 for the parties to lead the evidence, but I am unable to subscribe to that opinion. In case the petitioners do not want to lead an evidence they can just make a statement to that effect before the trial Court. They cannot come up with the plea that the other parties are also not required to lead any evidence. There is no merit in these revision petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. September 14, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge