IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2035 OF 2002 & C.M.A.No.3836 OF 2003 C.R.P.No.2035 of 2002: Between: Government of A.P., rep. by the Superintending Engineer (FAC), APSC Service Cooperative Society, Kadapa and another …Petitioners/Respondents A n d K.Siva Nagireddy …Respondent C.M.A.No.3836 of 2003 Government of A.P., rep. by the Superintending Engineer (FAC), APSC Service Cooperative Society, Kadapa and another …Petitioners/Appellants A n d K.Siva Nagireddy and another …Respondents HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2035 OF 2002 & C.M.A.No.3836 OF 2003 COMMON ORDER: (Per GVS, J) C.R.P.No.2035 of 2002 is directed against the order dated 28-04-2000 in O.S.No.53 of 1993, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur, wherein the said suit filed by the claimant, respondent herein, to make the award dated 11-12-1992, passed by the arbitrator, as a rule of the Court, was decreed. 2. C.M.A.No.3836 of 2003 is directed against the order dated 28-04-2000 in O.P.No.43 of 1993, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur, wherein the said application filed by the appellants herein to set aside the award dated 11-12-1992, as passed by the second respondent herein, was dismissed. 3. Since the parties in both the matters are one and the same and the subject matter involved is also one and the same, they are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the appeal. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for arbitration appearing for the appellants. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the record. 5. The first respondent herein was the contractor who was entrusted with the work of construction of BC Hostel building at Penukonda. The work must be completed within nine months from the date of handing over the site. The total value of the work was Rs.4,80,516/-. According to the first respondent, he has procured the material required and also the machinery at the work site and also engaged necessary labour for execution of the work at considerable cost and that on account on failure on the part of the appellants to arrange for supply of water for the purpose of construction, he could not carry out the work. The appellants herein disputed the claim of the first respondent by contending that he has not taken up the work at all and no part of the contract was ever put into execution. The dispute was referred to an arbitrator and the second respondent herein was appointed as sole arbitrator. 6. The arbitrator, after recording the evidence and on a consideration of the entire material available on record, passed the award dated 11-12-1992 in favour of the first respondent upholding the claim in-part to an extent of Rs.2,92,326-48 ps. The first respondent filed a suit for making the award as a rule of the Court and the appellants herein filed O.P.No.43 of 1993 for setting aside the award inter alia on the ground that the arbitrator has not followed the principles of natural justice and no opportunity was afforded to the appellants for contesting the claim and also on the ground that the award passed by the second respondent is contrary to the evidence available on record. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge by the impugned order dismissed the said application holding that the appellants herein have failed to establish that the arbitrator has not followed the principles of natural justice while conducting the arbitration proceedings or passing of the award. 7. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants would submit that the Court below has failed to consider the plea of the appellants that the award is contrary to the evidence available on record and though the first respondent has not executed any part of the contract and has not commenced the work at all, the arbitrator, second respondent, has erroneously passed the award in favour of the first respondent for a sum of Rs.2,92,326-48 ps. 8. As seen from the impugned order of the Court below, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge has only dealt with the aspect as to whether the arbitrator has followed the principles of natural justice while conducting arbitration proceedings. The impugned order does not disclose that the Court below has considered the other aspect raised by the appellants herein that the award passed is not based on evidence at all. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge has recorded his finding only to the effect that the appellants herein except simply stating that the arbitrator passed the award without following the principles of natural justice did not, however, produce any material before the Court to substantiate the said plea. The entire thrust of the impugned order is focused only on the aspect as to whether the principles of natural justice have been followed or not and no attention is paid to the other contention raised by the appellants though it was specifically taken as one of the grounds in the petition that the award passed by the arbitrator is totally contrary to the evidence available on record and the award is erroneously passed though the contractor, the first respondent, has not commenced the work at all. 9. In the circumstances, as the impugned order does not deal with an important aspect of the case which was specifically pleaded and also argued before the Court below, it is considered just and proper that the matter is remitted back to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge for considering the said aspect as well and recording a specific finding as to whether the award is sustainable on the said ground also or not. 10. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur for considering all the aspects of the case raised by the appellants and respondent, after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides and record specific findings thereon and dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law. Having regard to the fact that the claim is of the year 1993, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. In the result, both the civil revision petition and civil miscellaneous appeal are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 03rd August, 2009. Lrkm/Bss.