COURT OF CHHATTISG.'UUI AT BILASPLTR MISC. APPEALNo. 518/2006 ATPELLANTS Omprakash Dubey and others SPONDE? Chhattisgarh Graha Nirman Mandal. ORDBR t\- Post for23-7-2009 Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge V !'] ^ k -^ s3 \\\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS&'ym AT BILASPUR APPELLANTS RESPONDENT •V.. MISC. APPEALNo. 518/2006"* . 1. Omprakash Dubey, S/o Late Shri Kuryilal Dubey, R/o. House No. 2452, Wright Town, Jabalpur MP (through Surya Kant Tiwari) 2. Gyan Prakash Dubey, S/o Late Shri Kunjilal Dubey, RVo House No. 2453, WrightTown, Jabalpur,MP 3. Suryakant Tiwari, aged about 49 yeare, S/o Sfari Shabhu Dayal Tiwari, R/o D/7, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur CG Versus Chhattisgarh Graha Nirman Mandal, through Executive Engineer, CG Graha Numan Mandal, Division Bilaspur Sinele Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Asarwal, J.) Present : ShriDineshR.K. Tiwari,Advocateforth^appeUanf. Smt. Hameeda Siddiqui, Adv. for the resporident. ORDER (Passed on'a.'S day ofJidy, 1. The appellant has filed ari application dated 24-4-2009 for convertingfhe instantmisc. appeal into civil revision. . 2. On due consideration, the application is allowed. The misc. appeal be treated as civil revision under Section 115 ofthe C.P.C. 3. The iastant revisipn is filed by the applicant against the order dated 20-3-2006 passed in M.J.C. No. 10/2006 by fhe C.G. Madha^-stham Adhikaran, Raipur whereby the application for substitution ofthe legal representatives of deceased Ranakali Bai filed by the applicant has; been dismissed on the ground that this aspect of the matter has already been dealt with in fhe order ofthe Tribunal dated 28-11- '•• 2005 passed in Petition No. 1/2005. ' . ' ^t • , 4: Brief facts bf fhe case are that one Ramkali Bai filed a reference under Section 7 ofthe M.P. Madhyaastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (Briefly, the Adhiniyam, 1983) before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal through Power of Attomey .Suryakaat Tiwari against M.P. Housing Board pleading fherein that the petitionsr entered into a works contract withthe respondent for constmction of F" ^ y Y^ 7 Junior MIH "A" includmg W/S/S/T and int^mal electrification at Nehru Nagar, Biiaspur. The Tribunal passed award dated 17-8-1998 holding that the petitioaer is entitled to get Rs. 12,959/- as refand of security deposit and Rs. 28,840.74 as escalation total Rs. 41,800/-. However, petitioner's claim for loss ofprofits and loss ofoverheads were rejected. During pendency of the of the reference petition, petitioner Ramkali Bai died on 11-11-1991. The applicants moved an application before flie District Court, Bhopal for execution of Award under Order 21 Rule 11 of'C.P.C. bemg Execution Case No. 1/2001. Upon receiving the notice, the respondent moved an application before Chhattisgarh Arbitration Tribunal, under Section 17 ofthe Adhiiiiyam, 1983 on fhe gronnd that flie reference pefition was filed on behalfofRamkali Bai wfao expired duringthe pendency ofthe petition but her power ofattomey neiflier informed about her death to fhe Tribunal nor brought her legal representatives on record. Therefore the award is a nullity. The Tribunal vide order date'd 28- 11-2005 recalled the award dated 17-8-1998 passed in favour ofthe deceased Ramkali. Applieaiit No. 3 Suryakant Tiwari moved an application under Order 22 Rule 9 along witfa an application under Section 5 of the Limitatipn Act for condonation of delay before the Tribunal for bringing the legal representatives on record and for proceeding the reference fi-om that stage afresh. By order dated 20-3- 2006, the leamed Tribunal dismissed the application, against which the mstant petition has been filed. » It is not ia dispute fhat on fhe date of filing of tlie applieation for substitution of legal representatives i.e. on 24-2-2006, no lis was pending before the Tribunal inasmuch the award has already been recalled vide order dated 28-11-2005. Para 7 offhe order passed in M.J.C. No. 1/2005 dated 28-11-2005 reads as under:- "7. It is not disputed that the original Reference Petition was with regard to dispute arismg out ofa contract and in viev/ of the contractual right it cannot abate only due to death ofthe petitioner as the right had survived and devolved upon her successor. In such a situation un3er Rule 3(2) Order 22 C.P.C. where •within the time limit by la-w, no -? y \-'^ application is made to br'ing her Legal Representatives on record, the clann shall abate and •was liable tobe dismissed on that ground ak>ne ". 6. It is also not in dispute fhat fhe order dated 28-11-2005 has not been chailenged by the applicant and the order attained fuiality. The applicant submits that the application filed by tlie applicant ought to i have been decided by leamed Tribunal on its ovcn merits. He , submits that in vievv of th&decision in Punjab Nationd Baiik -v- Firm Ramkishan Rameopai and others reported in 1998 fl) MPLJ 478, revision is maintainable against such order. 7. Per contra, Smt. Hameeda Siddiqui, leamed counsel for the respondent submits that as the order passed by the Tribunal on 28- 11-2005 attained fmality and by the said order; leamed Tribunal had akeady held that the claim petition of said Ramkali Bai staads abated, and therefore, no fiirtfaer application could have b.een filed by the applicant, it was further submitted tliat remedy ofrevisioa under Section 115 ofC.P.C. is not available to die applicant. 8. I have heard leamed counsel for the parties and penised the record. 9. Under Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (briefly, the Adhiniyam, 1983), relief ofrevisioa before the Higli Court is provided under Section 19 against the award passed by the Tribunal. There is ao provision providing aay remedy against aay interlocutory order passed by the Tribunal. 10. 61 exercise of Section 29 of the Adhiniyam, 1983, fhe State Govemment has framed niles namely Chhattisgarh Madhyastliam Adhikaran Niyam, 1984 and also in exercise ofpowers corifeired by Section 10 of the Adliiniyam, 1983, the Tribunal has framed regulatioiis namely Cfahattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Regulations, 1985. A bare perusal of the aforesaid mles and regulations would show that neither any remedy is provided against any interiocutoty order passed by the Tribunal nor Section 115, C.P.C. has been made applicable for it. More so, when the application was filed before the Tribunal, no lis was pending before it and therefore, fhe judgment cited by the applicant are ofno help to i,''.r !f"°i~.i^^ "'A. s9Wa^. "'"""i ">.. .*>.^ ^ 't'^ 11. him. Further more, the Tribunal has already held iii para 7 of its order dated 28-11-2005 that the claim was abated and was liable to be disnassed on that ground alone. The said order had attained finality as it has not been challenged by the applicant. Even under the proviso to Section 115 ofC.PC. the revision under Section 115 is not maintainable. In view ofthe above, the revision filed by the applicant is liable to be and is herebv dismissed. Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge patfaalc