C.R. No. 5610 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5610 of 2009 Date of Decision : 26.08.2010 M/s Ajit Parshad Jain Contractors Fabricators-Supplies 214, Sector 10, Panchkula .......... Petitioner Versus M/s Gonterman Peipers (India Ltd.), 69 Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Calcutta & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Keshav Kataria, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 12.6.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Chandigarh, vide which the application for restoration of petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, moved by the petitioner stands dismissed. The application moved by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was dismissed in default on account of non-filing of process fee etc. The petitioner moved an application by invoking the C.R. No. 5610 of 2009 -2- **** provisions of Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of the petition, by explaining the reasons, as to why process fee etc. could not be paid in time. Prima facie the reasons given for restoration of the petition were good reasons, as the fault was on the part of the counsel, engaged by the petitioner, and the petitioner had no role to play, as counsel was duly authorised to file the process fee etc. It is not necessary to go into the question, as to whether the order refusing to restore the petition can be sustained or not, as the learned trial Court placed reliance on the provisions of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to hold, that the appointment of Arbitrator could only be made by the Chief Justice, or person or institution designated by him. The learned Court has thus recorded a finding, that it had no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator. The learned trial Court, therefore, could not have dismissed the petition in default, for want of jurisdiction. In view of the admitted position, referred to above, this revision petition is disposed off, by permitting the petitioner to move fresh application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before Hon'ble the Chief Justice, or person or institution designated by him in this regard. Revision disposed off. 26.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE