Consolidated Engineering Enterprises vs The Principal Secretary to Government Irrigation Department (Minor Irrigation), The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division and Sri. B.M. Rama Prasad Chief Engineer (Retired)

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 29.6.2011 insofar as it relates to I.A. No. 6 in Arbitration Suit No. 1/2007. The said order is impugned at Annexure-F to the petition.

Heard Sri S.K.V. Chalapathy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. Hegde Associates for the Petitioner and Sri M.S. Bhagwat, learned Counsel, who has entered caveat on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 and perused the petition papers.

The Petitioner herein is the first Respondent in Arbitration Suit No. 1/2007. The said suit has been instituted by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 assailing the award passed by the arbitrator. In the pending suit, the Respondents No. 1 and 2 herein filed two applications - one under Order 14 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure, which was numbered as I.A. No. 5 and the instant application, which is the subject matter of the petition is under Order 18 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, which was numbered as I.A. No. 6. The Court below, in any event, has rejected the I.A. No. 5 and therefore the grievance in the instant petition refers only to I.A. No. 6.

The learned Senior Counsel while assailing the order passed by the Court below would contend that the Court below was not justified in allowing the application at a. belated stage, It is contended that the proceedings have been pending from the year 1999, though the instant petition is renumbered as A.S. No. 1/2007. It is his further contention that, in a proceeding u/s 34 of the Act, there was No. need for tendering evidence and in any event, the Respondents have not put forth the reason why the case has to be reopened and therefore the said application ought not to have been allowed.

Learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Fiza Developers and Inter-Trade P. Ltd. Vs. AMCI (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Another, to contend that the proceedings u/s 34 of the Act should be disposed of in a time frame.

Learned Counsel for the caveator would however seek to justify the order passed by the Court below by pointing out that when the Rules have been framed relating to the arbitration suit and issues have been framed, the Court below was justified in allowing the Respondents to tender their evidence in the matter.

In the light of the rival contentions put forth, I have perused the order passed by the Court below. In this regard, while considering and disposing I.A. No. 6, the Court below has adverted to its reasons in point No. 2. No. doubt, the Court below has taken note of the long pendency of the proceedings. However, the distinguishing nature adverted to by the Court below for arriving at the conclusion that the said application should be allowed is with reference to the earlier proceedings, where under the matter had gone up to the decision before the Hon''ble Supreme court. Thereafter, in any event, the suit had been registered, since it was held that the appeal was not the appropriate proceeding. In this regard, the issues had been framed. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that when the issues have been framed and the Respondents herein, had not tendered evidence except on the issue of limitation and had sought for an opportunity to lead evidence, the same should be permitted.

Though there is a long pendency of the proceedings, considering the fact that the Respondents have sought for tendering the evidence before the closure of proceedings and in any event, such opportunity could be regulated by the Court below, I am of the opinion that the Court below has rightly exercised its discretion and such discretion exercised by the Court below does not call for interference while examining the same in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India where the scope of examination by this Court is limited. Hence to the said extent, I see No. error.

However, having taken note of the fact that the proceedings has been pending for quite some time and also having taken note of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, as also as the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties that both the parties would co-operate with the Court below for early disposal of the main matter itself, I am of the opinion that an opportunity of tendering evidence permitted by the Court below would have to be qualified by fixing a time limit. Hence, both the Petitioner as well as the Respondents herein, who are the parties before the Court below shall complete their evidence within a period of two months from 30.7.2011, since the matter is listed before the Court below tomorrow (30.7.2011). The Court below shall thereafter look into the records as well as the evidence tendered and dispose of the main matter itself as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four months from 30.7.2011.

in terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No. order as to costs.