Haryana Urban Development Authority, Chandigarh etc. vs Sh. D.S. Verma, Arbitrator, Superintending Engineer, etc.

I.S. Tiwana, J.—The solitary challenge of the petitioner to the order dated June 15.1981 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Hissar is that the said Court while returning the application filed under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act (for short, the Act) has failed to comply with the provisions of newly added rule 10A of Order 7, C.P.C. Though the Learned Counsel for the respondent concedes that the provisions of the CPC apply to the proceedings under the Arbitration Act and in case the application of the petitioner has to be treated as a plaint then the procedure provided for in rule 10-A had to be resorted to vet seeks to contend that the application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Act cannot be treated as a plaint. I see no merit in the last mentioned contention of the Learned Counsel. On my query he is not in a position to explain as to under which provision of law in case the application filed by the petitioner is not to be treated as a plaint-has it been ordered to be returned to the petitioner. It is beyond dispute that the provisions of rule 10-A referred to above have been added to obviate the necessity of serving the summons on the defendants again and to overcome the objection with regard to the period of limitation etc.

For the reasons recorded above, I set aside the penultimate para of the impugned order wherein it has been ordered that the application be returned to the petitioner and send the case back to the trail Court for deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law and the observations made above. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before that Court on August 30, 1980. No costs.