C.R. No.7496 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7496 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 17.11.2010. M/s Ashana Enterprises .....Petitioner Versus Markfed Cotton Seed Processing Plant and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 03.09.2010 Annexure P-3 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar thereby dismissing application moved by the petitioner for de-exhibiting the arbitrator's file. Petitioner has filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside arbitral award made by respondent No.3 in dispute between petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2. Kewal Krishan PW-1 witness of the respondents in his examination-in-chief exhibited in evidence the file of the arbitrator as EX.D- 1. The petitioner moved application for de-exhibiting the said file alleging that the documents in the said file are inadmissible in evidence. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been preferred. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. C.R. No.7496 of 2010 (O & M) -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there are certain documents in the file of the arbitrator which were not exhibited even before the arbitrator and, therefore, the entire file of the arbitrator could not have been exhibited and admitted in evidence. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention which on first blush appears to be very attractive, but in fact the contention is misconceived and misplaced and carries no weight. In objection petition filed the petitioner itself against the award of the arbitrator, the Court is duty bound to peruse the arbitrator's file in order to adjudicate upon the objections. Consequently, irrespective of whether the said file is exhibited or not, when the said file has to be taken into consideration, no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner. The application moved by the petitioner in the trial Court and the instant revision petition is exercise in futility. If certain documents were produced before the arbitrator, but were not exhibited, then what is the effect thereof on the award, has to be adjudicated upon by the trial Court while deciding the objections preferred by the petitioner against the award of the arbitrator. Mere fact that arbitrator's file has been exhibited and admitted in evidence would not imply that the trial Court is denuded of its power to assess the documents in the arbitrator's file for adjudicating upon the objections. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court. The instant revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 17.11.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE