IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA L.P.A. No. 116 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.3.2009 Ranjit Singh Rana ……Appellant Vs. Executive Engineer Construction Division …… Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate. ORDER CMP (M) No. 846/2008 & LPA No. 116/2008 No reply is intended to be filed. We have gone through the application, which is supported by an affidavit. Reasons for delay in filing the appeal, as stated in the application, make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hence, application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. 2. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred under Clause 10 of High Court Rules against the order dated 8.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in Execution Petition No. 16/2006, whereby award has been set aside in the execution petition. 3. It appears that learned Arbitrator was appointed, who passed the award after issuing notices to the parties. The award was not part of the record. Therefore, in reference to execution of award (on the basis of photostat copy of the 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? Yes. award purported to have been signed by the Arbitrator), notices were issued to the respondents, Executive Engineer herein as well as to the Arbitrator. In response to the notices issued to the parties, affidavits were filed and parties were further heard. It revealed that the award (photocopy of which has been placed on record before the learned Single Judge) has been destroyed by the learned Arbitrator himself. The learned Arbitrator was also examined on oath on 7th September, 2007 and testimony of the arbitrator was also recorded which reads as under: “I have seen mark ‘X’ which is photocopy of the award made in the arbitration proceedings. It has been signed by me on each page. This was signed by me on 18th July, 2006. This award was dictated by me to my Steno. My Steno put up these papers before me for signatures on which I signed. The stamp papers, bought by the claimants, were supplied to me. These papers were filed before me on my asking No hearing was held by me after 18th July, 2006. Thereafter, I fixed the case for rehearing on 14th March, 2007. Between 18th July, 2006 and 24th February, 2007, I did not issue any communication to any of the parties.” 4. On the basis of the testimony and facts of the case, it was also revealed that the stamp papers which were supplied to learned Arbitrator for finalizing the award were destroyed. As such, the award could not be said to have been finalized. During the course of hearing in execution petition, the parties were agreed for appointment of another Arbitrator for passing the fresh award and both the parties have unequivocally given their consent to appoint Arbitrator who is to adjudicate the dispute which has arisen between the parties. Accordingly fresh Arbitrator has been appointed, who is directed to commence the proceedings from the previous stage the former Arbitrator had left the case. Learned Single Judge has also indicated the fee to be paid to the arbitrator, which will be borne by both the parties including the secretarial and miscellaneous charges to be borne by both the parties. 5. Since the said order dated 8.7.08 has been passed with the consent of the parties and consequent upon, the new Arbitrator has been appointed, we find that there is no illegality in the impugned order therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference, hence the LPA is dismissed. In view of the disposal of main appeal, application(s), if any, is also disposed of. ( R.B. Misra ), J. ( Surjit Singh ), J. 20.3.09(sl)