1. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the parties.

2. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel waives service of behalf of respondent.

3. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Company challenges the order dated 07/09/2013 passed by Principal District Judge, Panaji (“PDJ” hereinafter) allowing the application at Exhibit- 20 for amendment of petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

4. The earlier orders passed by this Court showed an effort being made to dispose of the matter finally at the stage of admission. It is not necessary to narrate facts for present adjudication. Pendency of application filed under Section 34 of above mentioned 1996 Act by the present respondent challenging the award dated 28/12/2009 by Arbitrator is not disputed. The application seeking leave to raise additional grounds vide Exhibit-20 came to be filed in the month of January, 2012 i.e. more than two years after the filing of Section 34 application and it has been allowed by the impugned order dated 07/09/2013.

5. It is in this background, Senior Advocate Shri Kantak with Advocate Nadkarni has submitted that totally new ground of bias