IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. Nos.26545 CII of 2009 in C.M No.25192 of 2009 & CIVIL REVISION NO.3405 OF 1998 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 20, 2010 Union of India represented by AGE(I) Hospital, Chandimandir .....Petitioner VERSUS M/s Janeshwar Dass Narinder Jain, Ambala Cantt. ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. O.P. Goyal, Sr.Advocate with Ms. Kanwaljeet Kaur, Advocate, for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J.(ORAL) C.M. NO.26545 CII OF 2009 In view of the averments made in the application and considering the reply filed thereto, delay of 582 days in filing the application is condoned. The application is accordingly disposed of. C.M No.25192 of 2009 This is a case where the revision was dismissed for non- prosecution on 19.2.2008. Later, an application was filed for recalling the order. The same was also dismissed on 7.4.2008. Subsequently, application has been filed for recalling of both the orders. This application was filed with a delay of 582 days, which has separately been condoned. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the orders dated 19.2.2008 and 7.4.2008 are recalled and the revision is restored to its original position. CIVIL REVISION NO.3405 OF 1998 :{ 2 }: Heard the counsel for the parties on merits. The challenge in the revision is to an arbitration award dated 12.10.1992. This award has been made rule of the Court on 21.8.1995. The appeal against the same was also dismissed. The grievance of Union of India is limited to the extent that claim Nos.3 and 5 were beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. The objection raised on behalf of the petitioner was that as per the general conditions of the contract, G.E. was to inspect the soundness of the quality of the supply and his decision was to be final and conclusive. The further plea is that the respondent was guilty in submitting the samples and material confirming to the contract specification and, thus, a sum of ` 1,02,300/- can not be awarded. This submission is more on merits of the controversy rather than going to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, who gave the award. The finding is that sample was submitted well within the time but the long time was taken by the petitioner to grant approval. In this background, nothing is made out from the proceedings to go into this aspect of the dispute. Otherwise also, an arbitration award given in the year 1992 must acquire finality. The revision is accordingly dismissed. August 20, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE