CR No. 3688 of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3688 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.8.2009 State of Haryana and others ....Petitioners. Versus M/s Sharma & Company ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ashish Sharma, DAG, Haryana, for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the defendant-petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 11.5.2004 passed by the trial court whereby an application filed by them under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) to place on file the order dated 14.11.2003 was dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts for the purpose of this revision only are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit on 23.7.1999 for the release of its pending dues against the contract work done by it and the said suit was subsequently amended. The plaintiff led evidence in support of its claim and the defendants adduced their evidence supporting the CR No. 3688 of 2004 -2- written statement and denying the claim of the plaintiff-respondent. When the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any, and for arguments, an application under Section 151 of the Code was filed by the defendant-petitioners to place on file the order dated 14.11.2003. The said prayer of the defendants has been declined by the trial court by the impugned order. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file with their assistance. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners submitted that since Arbitrator was appointed vide order dated 14.11.2003 whereas the evidence of the defendants was closed on 25.4.2003, therefore, the said document was required to be placed on record and the trial court should have allowed the application filed by the defendants. On the other hand, controverting the submission of the learned State counsel, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that the aforesaid application was not maintainable for two reasons. Firstly, the defendant-petitioners had not filed any application for leading additional evidence in accordance with the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17A of the Code as were prevalent at the time of filing the suit; and secondly, the only prayer made in the application filed under Section 151 of the Code was to place on record the copy of the order of appointment of the Arbitrator, without any prayer for producing any evidence to prove the same. A copy of the application filed under Section 151 of the Code has been attached along with this revision petition as Annexure CR No. 3688 of 2004 -3- P-7. The prayer clause of the said application reads as under:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the application of the applicant may kindly be allowed and the order for appointment of Arbitrator by the Engineer-in-Chief Haryana PWD B&R Br. Chandigarh in terms of written contract document between the parties may kindly be placed on record in the interest of justice.” A perusal of the application and also the prayer clause shows that the defendant-petitioners had prayed only for placing on record the order of appointment of Arbitrator by the Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana PWD (B&R Branch), Chandigarh, and had no where pleaded that the order which they wanted to place on record was to be proved by way of leading additional evidence and mere placing on record the order of appointment of Arbitrator ipso facto would not be of any use to the defendant-petitioners. Further, it was recorded by the trial court that the defendant-petitioners have filed the said application when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any, and for arguments just to delay the proceedings of the civil suit. In view of the above, no illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners with the impugned order which may warrant interference by this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Nothing observed in this order shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. CR No. 3688 of 2004 -4- The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial court on 5.10.2009 who shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. Since the suit relates to the year 1999, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. August 19, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE