1 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5482/2007 M/s. Hema Construction. vs. District Judge, Rajsamand and ors. Date : 14.9.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Chaitanya Gahlot, for the petitioner. - - - - - Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to take the ground in appeal in case any occasion arises to challenge the order dated 4.8.2007. Certain orders are the orders of moment and if not passed in time, they cannot be passed subsequently The petitioner's contention is that the objection petition filed by the objector under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act should be dismissed without detail decision on merits and only on the basis of the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner. This type of objection if not decided before the final decision given by the court below, this objection cannot survive and the appellate court need not to pass any order whether the application under Section 30 of 2 the Arbitration Act should have been dismissed merely on the preliminary objection or not, when the main objection itself has been decided on merits. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to grant permission to the petitioner to give liberty to challenge the order dated 4.8.2007 after final decision of the proceedings before the court below, therefore, permission with this liberty to withdraw the writ petition cannot be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner on merits submitted that as per Rule 24 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986, an appliation containing arguments, examples and Sections of the Act and/or about judgments of the Courts etc., then that application is required to be returned back to the person who filed such application. It is submitted that it is clear from the copy of the objection petition filed under Section 30 by the respondent State that in the entire objection petition, the respondent has submitted legal arguments and gave reference to the several judgments of High Court and Supreme Court. In that situation, the trial court should have returned the objection petition forthwith under Rule 24 of the General Rules (Civil), 1986. I considered the submissions of learned counsel 3 for the petitioner and perused the entire objection petition filed under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1945 by the respondent. It is true that in the entire objection petition filed under Section 30, there is mention of several judgments of various Courts and there are a few arguments also. Apart from the above, there are certain objections also raised against the award. Both can be separated easily and the plea taken by the respondent for challenge to the award can be understood. Rule 24 is not mandatory in character so as to always return the application wherein there is mention of arguments and certain examples or there are references of judgments of Courts. The Rule of pleading requires precise pleadings about the facts and factual and legal grounds and not pleading the law itself or quote the Section or judgments of any Courts and that Rule also is only a Rule of procedure and not having the only consequence to return it. In view of the above reasons, the writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya