Civil Revision No. 807 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 807 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.09.2009 Shashi Bhushan Gupta partner M/s Shiva Trading Company, G.T. Road, Suranussi, Jalandhar, and another ....Petitioners Versus Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Arun Kumar Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.1.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Jalandhar. The impugned order reads as under: - “Heard. Shashi Bhushan has not come present in spite of the service through Bailable warrants. Counsel for the respondent has filed an application for discharging that witness on the ground that he is respondent & the practice of summoning the opposite party is not a healthy practice & that the applicant had enough opportunity to lead his evidence during the arbitration proceedings & that in order to delay the present proceedings & to cause harassment to the respondent he has been summoned as a witness. The application has been filed not against Shashi Bhushan AW, but has been filed against M/s Shiva Civil Revision No. 807 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Trading Co. He has been summoned by the applicant alongwith documents mentioned in the application. He was served for 23.9.08. But did not appear & filed an application for exemption of his personal exemption on the ground of illness, which was allowed. He failed to appear on the next date, as a result of which, bailable warrants were issued against him. So the disposal of the application is being delayed on account of the appearance of that AW & not on account of any act of Applicant. He is avoiding to appearing before the Court. There is no merit in the application & the same is hereby dismissed. Now this AW be summoned through non bailable warrants for 20.2.09.” The grievance of the petitioners is, that the petitioner(s) is party to the lis and, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent to have summoned him as witness nor the documents could be asked to be produced by him as these were not in his possession. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that summoning of the documents by the respondent is not legally sustainable, as in objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, no evidence was required to be led. The evidence led before the Arbitrator can be the basis for adjudication of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as the award can only be challenged on the limited grounds given under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The main grievance of the petitioners, however, is, that the learned District Judge instead of drawing adverse inference against the petitioner(s) for not having appeared in the Court, has ordered his presence by way of non-bailable warrants. Civil Revision No. 807 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends that the impugned order should not be interfered with, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner had chosen to disobey the summons issued by the Court. The learned counsel for the respondent further contends, that the petitioner should have respected the summons of the Court and appeared before the Court, instead of taking his own decision, not to appear in the Court, for the reasons best known to him. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Once, the petitioner is a party, there was no reason to summon him as witness by the respondent, specially when the objections were under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The learned counsel for the respondent is right in contending, that the petitioner should have respected the Court order and appeared before the Court, and made submissions. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states, that the petitioner will appear in the Court of learned District Judge on the next date of hearing. In view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this revision is allowed, the impugned order, ordering the presence of the petitioner by way of non-bailable warrants, is ordered to be quashed. Revision allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 14, 2009 R.S.