IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.213 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 17.05.2010 M/s Metro Motors and Finance Company ..Petitioner Versus Harish Bhatia and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Adish Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, setting aside the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, appointing an Arbitrator. In terms of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, learned counsel has argued that under the 1996 Act, order appointing an Arbitrator or even otherwise taking recourse to Section 11 is not an appealable order and only petition under Article 227 of the Constitution could have been filed against it. Learned counsel for the respondent has sought to defend the order on merits. However, learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to deny that the order under Section 11 is not an appealable order under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In these circumstances, this petition has to be allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, this would not take away the right of the respondent to challenge the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in appropriate proceedings and, if required to take recourse to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 17, 2010 sukhpreet IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.213 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 17.05.2010 M/s Metro Motors and Finance Company ..Petitioner Versus Harish Bhatia and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Adish Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1. AJAY TEWARI J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, for setting aside the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, appointing an Arbitrator. In terms of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, learned counsel has argued that under the 1996 Act, order for appointing an Arbitrator or even otherwise, taking recourse to Section 11 is not an appealable order and only petition under Article 227 of the Constitution could have been filed against it. Learned counsel for the respondent has sought to defend the order on merits. However, learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to deny that the order under Section 11 is not an appealable order under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In these circumstances, this petition has to be allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, this would not take away the right of the respondent to challenge the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in appropriate proceedings. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE May 17, 2010 sukhpreet