State of Punjab vs Gurmeet Singh and Co. and Another

Mahesh Grover, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.7.2005 by which the application filed by the Petitioner u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. Prior thereto when the proceedings were initiated by the Petitioner, the Court of District Judge, Hoshiarpur passed the following order:

Present: M.S. Gill, government Pleader of the applicant.

As per report of the English Clerk, this application is to be dealt with by the Hon''ble High Court. Therefore, this application is ordered to be returned to the applicant for presentation to the competent court.

Sd/- G.K. Rai District Judge, Hoshiarpur 11.3.2006

Thereafter the Petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court bearing FAO No. 2245 of 2006 which was according to the Petitioner barred by limitation. The appeal was thus disposed of by passing an order which is extracted herein:

Present: Mr. Sushant Maini, DAG, Punjab for the Appellant.

Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent

Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that in view of the Punjab Court''s (Amendment) Ordinance 11 of 2006 issued vide notifications dated 26.8.2006 this appeal may be sent to the District Judge Hoshiarpur for decision on merits.

In view of the above, the appeal is sent to the District Judge, Hoshiarpur for disposal on merits.

Parties through their counsel shall appear before the District Judge on 8.8.2007.

17.7.2007

Sd/- R.S. Madan Judge

The matter then once again went before the District Judge Hoshiarpur who passed the impugned order. By virtue of the impugned order the proceedings have now been dismissed on 7.12.2009 by saying that since the delay in invoking the jurisdiction of the Court u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act was beyond 120 days hence the same was barred by limitation. This is the cause of the grievance of the Petitioner in the instant revision petition.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that initially when the proceedings were filed they were filed within limitation but it was on account of erroneous interpretation of law by the District Judge, Hoshiarpur that the application was dismissed forcing them to file an appeal and when the matter was remitted back then once again the impugned order has been passed under mis-conception of law.

Mr.P.S. Rana, counsel for the Respondents has on the other hand tried to justify the passing of the impugned order.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the entire exercise taken pursuant to the proceedings initiated by the Petitioner have been decided under mis-conception of law. As per Section 2(e) the principal Civil Court initiating such proceedings was the civil court of the original jurisdiction in the District but not including any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court or any Court of small causes.

Section 2(e) is extracted herein:

2(e) "Court" means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes.

The jurisdiction u/s 34 therefore vests with the District Judge and the Petitioner was right in approaching his Court in the first instance and since the matter has been initiated well within the stipulated time, the Court was wrong in declining to assume its jurisdiction u/s 34 again on an erroneous conception of law. Therefore, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the District Judge, Hoshiarpur to decide the issues raised before him in a petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 14.1.2011. Since the order has been passed in the presence of the learned Counsel for the parties, the District Judge may not send separate notices to ensure the presence of the parties.