IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.558 of 2009 Date of decision : July 29, 2010 Bhagwan Dass and others …Petitioners. Versus Smt. Krishna Devi and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms Charu Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 13. Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.14. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment, dated 18th May, 2009, of learned Additional District Judge, by which his appeal against the award of Arbitrator (Senior Sub Judge) has been dismissed, with the finding that appeal is not competent. 2. Petitioners had filed a Writ Petition in this Court, seeking direction to the Director (Consolidation) to make a reference to the Government, for appointment of an Arbitrator to settle some dispute between them and the respondents, arising out of the consolidation proceedings. This Court allowed that Writ Petition. Consequently, Senior Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Sub Judge was appointed as Arbitrator by the State Government. Arbitrator gave award against the petitioner. They challenged that award, by filing appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who has dismissed the same, with the finding that the appeal is not competent and the only remedy available to the petitioners was to have filed objections, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Learned Additional District Judge also observed that the award of the Arbitrator had become final. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. There is no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appealing against an award of Arbitrator. Therefore, no fault can be found with the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge that the appeal was not competent. However, learned Additional District Judge having no jurisdiction, because the appeal is not competent, as held by him, ought not to have held that the award of the Arbitrator had become final. When, according to him, the appeal is not competent, he had no jurisdiction to say that the award had become final. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court, in exercise of its powers, under Articles 227 & 226 of the Constitution of India, may convert the appeal that was filed before the learned Additional District Judge, …3… into objections, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. He says that this Court has such a power, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nawab Shaqafath Ali Khan and others versus Nawab Imdad Jah Bahadur and others and connected matters, (2009) 5 SCC 162. 6. Precedent relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not come to the rescue of the petitioners, for the simple reason that the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is to the effect that the High Court, in exercise of its power, under Articles 227 & 226 of the Constitution of India, can convert a revision or writ petition, pending before it, into an appeal. Appeal was not filed in this Court. In this Court only CMPMO, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed, for setting aside/quashing the order of the learned Additional District Judge. For the foregoing reasons, present petition is dismissed. However, it is ordered that the observation made by the learned Additional District Judge that the award has become final is expunged. July 29, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J