^ 0° HIGH COURT OF THB CHHATTISGAJttI AT BILA8PUR C.R. No.68/2009 APPLICANT RB8PONDBNT M/s. Evening Ads,, throiigh Partiier ~ Shn Harii'aju, aged 49 years, S/o Shri V.R. Raju, 16 Anand Niketan, Avanti Vihar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Versus Shri Ritesh Agarwal, S/o Shri Krishna Kumar Agrawal, Shyam Nagar, Behind ITI, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Suiag before Court below for M/s Raghav Advertisiag as its Maiiagiag Director. REVISION UWDBR SBCTIOII 115 OF THB CODB OPCIVIL PROCEDURB Aooearance: Mr. Raja Sharma, Counsel for the applicant. ORAL ORDBR (06.07.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heard. Beuig aggrieved with the oxxler dated 28.01,2009 passed in Civil Sxiit No. 27 A/08, by the VII Additjonal District Judge, Raipiir, the petitioner has filed tliis revision imder Section 115 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908. The facts, briefly stated are, as iinder: M/s. Ragbav Advertising filed a petition against the petitioner herem under the provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for refeiTing the matter for arbiti'ation. The said petition was based on the agreenient dated 01,10.2006. The aforesaid petitioner was represented through Managing Director Shri Ritesh Agai-wal (respondent herein). The petitioner herem/non- applicant took aii objection before the District Coiirt that Rftesh Agan^al was not the Maiiagmg Director of M/ s. Raghav Advertismg; it is not a company; it^s a proprietorship institution and Ritesh Agarwal is not its proprietor; whereas, its proprietor is one Richa Agarwal, X C.R. No. 68/2009 therefore, the said concem has not been inipleaded/rcpresented through a proper person and the petition be dismissed on this coiiBt. It appears that thereafter, aa appUcation was filed by M/s. Raghav Advertising before fhe concemed Court for withdrawal of fhe petition witli a Uberty to ffle another petition on the ground fliat some technical mistakes have occurred in the said petition. This was opposed by the petitioner herein. However, the leamed Court below allowed the said application aad pennitted the withdi^wal of the petitioB with liberty to file a duly constituted petition throiigh wife of applicant Ritesh Agarwal namety Richa Aganval or a person diily authorized by her before the appropriate Court. Mr. Raja Shamia, appearing on behaJf of the petitioner herein, argiied that fhe order is bad ia law. The leamed Additional District Judge was not having authority and jiinsdiction to pass such an order, In exercise of the powers confeiTed by Section 82 of the Arbitration & ConciUation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), the High Coiut of Chhattisgarh made the Rules, iinder Part (N) of Chapter XVIII of the Rules ofthe Court, as to the proceedmgs before the Coiirts under the Act. These rules, made under Rule 382 of the Rules of the Court, are called as flie Chhattisgarh Arbitration Riiles, 2007. Rule 9 ofthe Rules provides for application of certam provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure- 1908 to the proceedmgs before a Court and Section 151 C.P,C. is al^) raade appUcable to siich proceedmgs. The learned Court below has taken recourae of the provisions of Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procediire and has permitted the wifhdrawal of the petition to the petifioner therein with the aforesaid liberty. I do not fiiid any illegality or irregi3larity in the order passed by tlie Coiirt below while pemiitting the petitioner firoi to withdraw their petition with liberty to file aii appropriate petition before the appropriate Court. The revisioii has no nierits. The sanie is liable to be dismissed and is hereby disniissed suiamarily, Sd/- SunilKumar Sinha Judge