C.R. No. 5293 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5293 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 01.09.2010 State of Haryana .......... Petitioner Versus M/s Universal Construction Company ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana for the petitioner. Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the respondent. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19.2.2009, passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, Jind, as affirmed by the learned lower appellate Court, vide which award passed by the learned Arbitrator was made rule of the court. On an application filed by the respondent / Contractor under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the learned Civil Judge ( Sr. Div.), Jind, who was so authorized by the notification of this Court, referred the matter for adjudication to the learned Arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed an award for a sum of ` 2,88,403/- on 15.3.2002. Instead of filing the objections before the learned C.R. No. 5293 of 2009 -2- **** District Judge under Section 34 of the Act, the petitioner approached the learned Civil Court to entertain the application under Section 34 of the Act, even though the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the application. The objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, was not pressed, and the issue was decided against the petitioner / State . The learned trial Court dismissed the objections. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, the appeal was also dismissed. The objection 'that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the objections under Section 34 of the Act ' was rejected. The learned DAG, Haryana impugned the orders passed by the learned Courts below, as well as the award on the ground, that the award was non-speaking and exorbitant rate of interest was awarded to the respondent / contractor. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the revision petition on the plea, that the impugned orders were without jurisdiction, as the learned Civil Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the objections under Section 34 of the Act, as the jurisdiction was only with the District Judge. The appeal filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge was also not competent. The objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents deserves to be accepted, but the plea of the petitioner, that the award has become a decree on account of non-filing of objections within 90 days of the award can not be accepted, as the C.R. No. 5293 of 2009 -3- **** petitioner was bona fide prosecuting its case before the learned Court, and a finding was recorded by the learned Court, that it had a jurisdiction to entertain and try the objections and furthermore the learned Appellate Court upheld the order passed by the learned Civil Judge. It is well settled law that no party can be allowed to suffer for the fault of the Court in assuming jurisdiction which did not vest in it. This is a case where the learned Court committed an error in entertaining and deciding the objections. For the reasons stated, this revision is allowed, the impugned orders are set aside, and the case is remanded back to the learned District Judge to adjudicate on the objections filed under Section 34 of the Act, in accordance with law. Petition disposed off. 01.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE