CR No. 469 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 469 of 2010 Date of decision:- 22.9.2010 Bathinda Improvement Trust, Bathinda ......petitioner vs. Rakesh Bansal ......respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. D.D. Bansal, Advocate for respondent HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Defendant is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned District Judge on 21.12.2009, accepting the appeal filed by the plaintiff against an order passed by learned trial Court holding that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties and in view of the dispute being covered by such Arbitration agreement, the parties were given liberty to seek resolution of their disputes by an Arbitrator. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the appeal before learned District Judge was not maintainable as under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appeal is maintainable against an order granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9 of the Act or set aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act. It is contended that an order passed under Section 8 CR No. 469 of 2010 -2- of the Act is not appealable, therefore, the appeal filed by the plaintiff before the learned District Judge was not maintainable. Learned counsel for respondent could not controvert the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact, on the bare perusal of Section 37 of the Act, the appeal before the learned District Judge against an order passed under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is not maintainable. In view of the said fact, the entertainment of the appeal by the learned District Judge and to return a finding that order is appealable suffers from patent illegality and irregularity. Therefore, the present revision is allowed and the order passed by learned District Judge, Bathinda is set aside. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 22.9.2010 preeti