THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1369 and 1711 of 2000 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1931 and 1933 of 2000 Dated:29.10.2009 Between: N.V.Chowdary. ….Appellant And M/s.Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.1369 and 1711 of 2000 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1931 and 1933 of 2000 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) This common order becomes necessary for the reasons that would follow and also for the reason that the employer, namely Hindustan Steel Works Construction (HSCL) and the contractor are the same and the works entrusted to the latter involve site leveling and construction of Blast Furnace in Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (VSP) during 1981-1982. During the relevant period Sri N.V.Chowdary (hereafter called, the contractor) was entrusted the work of site leveling by HSCL which was the main contractor of VSP. Similarly, the contractor was also entrusted the work relating to Blast Furnace. The disputes arose during the execution of the work. Insofar as site leveling work is concerned, the contractor filed O.P.No.2 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for appointment of umpire. In relation to the same work HSCL filed O.P.No.3 of 1999 contending that there is no arbitral dispute and that the dispute was already covered by the previous reference. By a common order dated 16.04.1993 the learned Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, dismissed the contractor’s O.P and allowed the O.P filed by HSCL holding that no arbitrable dispute exists. In the meanwhile, contractor filed O.P.No.1 of 1999 for appointment of umpire in relation to a dispute which was already referred for arbitral tribunal and O.P.No.116 of 1999 was filed by HSCL to declare the reference/claims as outside the purview of arbitration. These two O.Ps were already disposed of by a common order dismissing the contractor’s O.P and allowing the O.P of the employer. Aggrieved by these orders, the contractor filed C.R.P.Nos.1691 and 3319 of 1993. By an order dated 08.12.1997 this Court disposed of these revisions filed by the contractors. The C.R.Ps were allowed, and the matters were remitted to the trial Court with a direction to afford further opportunity to the parties to lead evidence examining the claims under first reference as well as the claims subject matter of C.R.Ps and dispose of the matter. In the meanwhile, the Government of Andhra Pradesh and High Court established the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Gajuwaka. Therefore, the Original Petitions which were pending before Visakhapatnam Court after remand were transferred to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka in July 1998. The O.Ps were renumbered and by an order dated 28.01.2000 Gajuwaka Court allowed the O.P filed by HSCL and dismissed the O.P of the contractor. Aggrieved by the same, the contractor filed these Civil Revision Petitions and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. Learned Counsel for the contractor submits that the lower Court disposed of the O.Ps without giving notice to the contractor, and therefore, the orders are vitiated. Per contra, the learned Counsel for HSCL submits that as observed by the lower Court in the impugned orders the notice was issued to the parties, and therefore, there is no error in the order. This Court has considered the matter very carefully with reference to the orders passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.3319 of 1993 dated 08.12.1997. This Court specifically directed the lower Court to give opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of the claims in the earlier reference as well as the present reference. It appears, when the matters were transferred to Gajuwaka Court notice was issued only to the Counsel for the contractor, who appears to have relied on the written arguments already submitted. The trial Court proceeded only on that basis and did not particularly order notice to the contractor. This in our opinion is not in accordance with the order of remand. It is now well settled that when the appeal/revision is allowed by the appellate/revisional Court the lower Court is bound to consider the matter afresh as directed by the remanding Court. The non-compliance with any conditions in remand order would certainly amount to error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, we are convinced that the matters should be sent back to the lower Court for a fresh consideration. Accordingly, for the above reasons, these matters are allowed. The impugned orders of the lower Court are set aside and the matters are remitted to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, to dispose of the matters in accordance with the orders of this Court in C.R.P.No.3319 of 1993, dated 08.12.1997. As these matters pertain to dispute which arose in 1980’s we deem it appropriate to direct the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, to dispose of the matters as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and hope that the Counsel appearing for the parties would cooperate with the Court. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 29.10.2009 Note: Registry is directed to dispatch a copy of this order along with the original records to the lower Court within a period of one week from today. B/o. vs