IMPORTANT POINT
Revision lies against the Appellate Judgment passed in the appeal under Section 39 of Arbitration Act.

JUDGMENT

G.N. Ray, J.-Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 8, 1991 passed by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in Civil Revision Case No. 74 (SH) of 1989. The aforesaid decision was made by the Division Bench of the High Court on a reference by a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court in the said Civil Revision Case No. 74 (SH) of 1989. The learned Single Judge having disagreed with a decision by a Single Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Union of India v. D.S. Narula & Co.1 in Civil Revision No. 33(H) of 1985 that no revision lies against the appellate judgment passed in the appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, referred the Revision Case to the Division Bench for deciding the maintainability of the Revision Petition filed under Rule 36A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Janitia Hills 1937, against the appellate order dated March 28, 1968 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner. East Khasi Nille. Shillong arising out of the order dated July 21, 1984 passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner at Shillong rejecting the objections made under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act and making the award in question, a rule of court.

3. A contract was awarded to the appellant by the respondent for levelling of the sites at Mashipur near Silcher. In view of dispute between the parties on the claim of the appellant for the aforesaid work, the dispute was referred to the sole arbitrator being Engineer-in-Chief. Defence Headquarters, New Delhi by an order of Court. The sole arbitrator after hearing the parties made a non speaking award on July 28, 1982, for a sum of Rs. 6,72,645.56 in favour of the appellant with interest on the said sum at 10 from the date of award till realisation.

4. On August 11, 1982 the appellant filed the award in the Court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner at Shillong and the respondent filed objection to the award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act to which the appellant filed their rejoinder. The learned Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner rejected the objection and made the award a rule of Court.

5. The respondent thereafter filed an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act against the said decision of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner before the learned Deputy Commissioner at Shillong and the said appeal was dismissed by the learned Deputy Commissioner. A decree was drawn up in terms of the said award.

6. The respondent challenged the said appellate order by filing a revision petition under Rule 36A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Janitia Hills, 1937 before a Single Bench of the Gauhati High Court.

The learned Single Bench was of the view that the said revision petition under Rule 36A was maintainable by disagreeing with a contrary view expressed by another Single Bench of the said High Court in the case of Union of India v. D.S. Narula & Co. and referred the revision case for adjudication of the issue as to maintainability of the said revision application by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court.

7. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has held that under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, a second appeal from appellate judgment and order has been expressly barred. There is no provision in the Arbitration Act which puts an embargo on the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against the appellate order. It has been held by the Division Bench that there is no provision conferring revisions. Jurisdiction on the High Court against an appellate order. But Court has been defined under Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act. The proceedings before the appellate court under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act are judicial proceedings and the Judge exercises a power under Section 39 as a judicial officer. Section 115 Civil Procedure Code confers revisional powers on the High Court