Soni @ Anita vs M.G.House and Co. Ltd.

Manmohan Sarin, J.—Petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 24.2.1997, by which the learned Civil Judge rejected the application moved under Section10 read with Section151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has filed the present revision petition.

The bare essential facts leading to be filing of the present revision petition may be briefly noticed:

(i) The petitioner had booked an office flat at M.G. House I, 2 Community Centre. Wazirpur Industrial Area. Delhi. It is the petitioners case that the full consideration was paid and an agreement of sale was executed in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner dissatisfied with the maintenance service and other common facilities filed a complaint bearing No. 1962/93 against the respondent before the District Consumer Form on 6.8.1993. The respondent filed a suit for recovery in the month of December,1994 against the petitioner bearing No.481/94, for a sum of Rs. 5,053.67 towards the maintenance charges, ground rent and interest of late payment etc. The petitioner in the above suit moved an application u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for stay of the proceedings claiming an arbitration agreement. The respondent in view of the application u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act. 1940 having been moved by the petitioner, nominated the sole Arbitrator as contemplated under the Arbitration agreement. In the meanwhile, the suit for recovery instituted by the respondent has been stayed by the learned Civil Judge.

(ii) The petitioner was duly served with a notice issued by the Arbitrator to call upon the petitioner to file the statement of claim. The petitioner filed a petition for revocation of the authority of the Arbitrator under Sections 5.11 and 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 being Suit No. 229/95. Notice was issued to the respondent in the above case. The petitioner, it appears, made several attempts to obtain a stay u/s 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 but the respondent could not be served and the petitioner was unable to obtain a stay of the proceedings before the Arbitrator, appointed by the respondent. The petitioner, it appears, did not contest the proceedings before the Arbitrator, who made and published his award and filed the same for being made rule of the Court. A petition bearing No. 180/95, for making the award rule of the Court was filed. The petitioner has filed his objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940, which is pending for hearing of arguments.

It is in the background of aforesaid facts that the petitioner moved the application u/s 10 read with Section151, CPC, for stay of the proceedings in the petition bearing No. 180/95, for making the award rule of the Court. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Court Judge was that the proceedings in petition No.180/95, be stayed since they are based on the same cause of action as that of the complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Consumer Forum. The learned Civil Judge in the impugned order and upon consideration of the provisions of Section 10, CPC, has rightly observed that the complaint before the District Consumer Forum is for deficiency in service and compensation, whereas the present proceedings, the stay of which is sought, are for stay of the proceedings for making the award rule of the Court. Section 10 was clearly inapplicable to the said proceedings, the subject matter was entirely different. The proceeding before the District Consumer Forum could not be in the nature of a suit before the Civil Court, for which a stay is granted u/s 10, CPC. Besides, the District Consumer Forum was not a Civil Court and would have no jurisdiction to grant the relief as is sought in the present petition bearing No. 180/95, to make the award rule of the Court.

After some arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner did not press the contention before me that the petition for revocation of the authority of the Arbitrator was liable to be stayed on account of previously instituted proceedings before the District Consumer Forum. Learned Counsel confined his submissions to stay the proceedings for making the award rule of the Court in view of the pendency of the petition for revocation of authority of the Arbitrator. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that this ground was not urged or pressed before the learned Civil Judge. The objections filed by the petitioner to the award are stated to have been fixed for arguments. The petitioner presumably would have taken all available pleas in his objections. No case is made out for stay of the petition bearing No. 180/95, for making the award rule of the Court, pending disposal of the petition for revocation of authority of the Arbitrator, I find no infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition has no merit and is dismissed.