Civil Revision No. 499 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 499 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 24.1.2011 Haryana Power Generation Corporation ......petitioner Versus M/s Voltas Limited .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. The petitioner has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 12.1.2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Divn.) Faridabad vide which application dated 13.10.2010 filed under Section 5, 11 and 12 of Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. The petitioner filed an application (Annexure P-1) praying that the authority of the present Arbitral Tribunal be revoked and an order be passed for removal of the arbitrators and the parties be directed to appoint their nominee arbitrator afresh. In the alternative, Civil Revision No. 499 of 2011 (O&M) 2 it was prayed that the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal disqualifying Sh.Ram Chander Sharma, RW-4, from appearing as witness of department be quashed and his affidavit be taken on record. Vide the impugned order, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present petition. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves dismissal. In the instant case, the dispute between the parties as per the arbitration clause was referred to two arbitrators i.e. K.G.Dhall and Y.N.Bhardwaj in accordance with the provisions of Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The arbitration commenced in the year 1995 and is, thus, pending for the last more than fifteen years. The contention of the applicant was that the petitioner had not been allowed to file rejoinder to the rejoinder filed by the respondent. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the pleadings between the parties had concluded in April, 1997. The petitioner wanted to file rejoinder to the rejoinder filed by the respondent in the year 2008 after the evidence had been led before the arbitrator. In these circumstances, learned Civil Judge rightly held that the application for permission to file rejoinder to the rejoinder filed by the respondent had been rightly rejected by the arbitrator as it had been moved after eleven years. The said act of the arbitrator would not come within the definition of mischief or misconduct. It has also been noticed by the learned Civil Judge that the order vide which RW-4 Ram Chander Civil Revision No. 499 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Sharma was disqualified as a witness, was a detailed order. The said order has, however, not been placed on record. The arbitrators were appointed on 5.7.1996 but the proceedings could not be concluded till date as the petitioner is delaying the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to convince me that the arbitrators have misconducted and due to this reason they were liable to be removed. In these circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 24, 2011 anita