CRP 19/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR HN SARMA Heard Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard the le arned counsel for the respondent No. 2 who entered appearance by filing caveat. The subject matter of challenge in this revision petition is an order da ted 16.12.2010 passed in Misc. Case No. 26/2009 arising out of Misc.(J) Case No. 324/09 thereby rejecting the prayer for review of the order dated 15.12.09. Vide order dated 15.12.09 the learned trial court held that Mr. Bhupen C h. Kalita is one of the Director and he has the locus standi to file written ob jection and the petition challenging the locus of Mr. Bhupen Ch. Kalita by one M adhab Das, General Manager, was rejected. The aforesaid order was however came t o be challenged in CRP No. 20/2010 before this Court disposed on 5.4.2010. In th e aforesaid order it has been held that since the matter arose out of the arbitr ation proceeding in Misc. Arbitration Case No. 571/09 which is pending, the same is required to be disposed of and while deciding the said proceeding the learne d trial court was also directed to consider the objection raised by the parties in the revision petition in passing the order dated 15.12.2009. The review petit ion was filed by the present petitioner on 22.12.2009 seeking review of the orde r dated 15.12.09 passed by the learned trial court. The learned trial court afte r considering the matter and after taking note of the observations made in CRP N o. 20/2010 rejected the prayer for review of the impugned order dated 16.12.2010 which is the subject matter of this present petition. The order dated 15.12.09 sought to be reviewed was the subject matter of CRP No. 20/2010, before this Cou rt and in fact, this Court did not interfere with the said order and allowed the parties to raise their objection while deciding the arbitration proceeding itse lf. In the aforesaid civil revision petition the learned trial court was directe d to complete the arbitration proceeding within a period of two months from the date of appearing of the parties. In view of the above situation directing the learned trial court to comp lete arbitration proceeding itself within a period of two months and also on the ground that the same was not interfered with by this court in CRP No. 20/2010 t his petition stands disposed with the direction that the petitioner would be ent itled to raise his objections at the time of hearing of the arbitration proceedi ng itself, if so desires. In the meantime, the learned trial court is directed to complete the pro ceeding within a period of six weeks from today. Both the parties are directed to cooperate for early disposal of the rev iew petition.