* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 19.03.2009 Date of Order: 26.03.2009 RA 386/2008 in CM(M) 415/2007 % 26.03.2009 GE Money Financial Services Ltd. ... Petitioner Through: Ms. Gurmeet Bindra, Advocate Versus Shiv Prasad Sharma ... Respondent JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT 1. By this application, the petitioner has sought review of an order dated 6th August, 2008. This Court in its order of 6th August, 2008 observed that the petition has become infructuous in view of the fact the Arbitrator has already given an award dismissing the claim of the petitioner. The plea of the petitioner is that the respondent made false representation to the Court and no award has been passed in RA 386/2008 in CM(M) 415/2007 Page 1 of 3 the matter. Therefore, the order was liable to be reviewed. 2. The respondent was served a notice of review application but did not appear on first call when the matter was heard, later on submitted the written submissions. In the written submissions, respondent stated that the award was very much passed by the learned Arbitrator, who observed in the award that the reference under Arbitration Agreement was not maintainable as there was manipulation in the agreement and the documents. He rejected the reference on this ground. 3. This Petition under Article 227 was filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 11th January, 2007 passed by learned ADJ in RCA No. 29/2006 whereby the learned ADJ allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Civil Judge in a suit filed by respondent and remanded back the matter to the Civil Judge for disposal afresh in accordance with law. After the order was set aside and the suit was remanded back, the respondent/plaintiff withdrew the suit by making a statement before the Court below on 24th February, 2009 that he does not want to pursue the suit. The RA 386/2008 in CM(M) 415/2007 Page 2 of 3 suit was dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Since the suit itself stands dismissed as withdrawn, all orders passed in the suit automatically become non- operative. This Revision Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order in the suit also becomes infructuous. 5. This Court had held that the Petition had become infructuous in view of the award passed by the Arbitrator. It is not disputed by counsel for the applicant that the learned Arbitrator did pass an order observing that the contract relied upon was forged and he could not act upon the forged contract. The order passed by the Arbitrator is the award of the Arbitrator. It cannot be said that the Arbitrator had not passed an award. I therefore find that even otherwise there was no ground to review the order dated 6th August, 2008. March 26, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. ak RA 386/2008 in CM(M) 415/2007 Page 3 of 3