JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA SARKAR, J.

1. The revisional application arises out of an order dated August 29, 2025, passed by the learned arbitral tribunal. The tribunal allowed an application filed by the opposite party/counter claimant, for production of additional evidence at the stage of arguments.

2. Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate for the petitioner, relies on the decisions of this court in the matters of Cityscope Developers (P) Ltd. vs. Akla Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.,  (2000) SCC Online Cal 327 and Satyendra Nath Ray vs. VCK Share & Stock Broking Services Limited, 2021 SCC Online Cal 2096, in support of the contention that the arbitrator functions as a tribunal and is amenable to the superintending power of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Thus, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Suddhasatwa Banerjee, learned advocate for the opposite party, is being refuted by Mr. Basu on the ground that interlocutory orders passed by the learned arbitrator can be assailed by filing an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that unless the order is challenged at the first instance, the point cannot be raised at any later stage. Moreover, participation in the proceeding before the learned arbitrator without challenging the order impugned may raise a question of waiver, and the order will attain finality.

4. It is lastly submitted that the order suffers from erroneous exercise of jurisdiction and perversity. Upon recording an admission that the opposite party/counter claimant wanted to fill up a lacuna which was noticed at the stage of arguments, the learned arbitrator allowed additional evidence to be filed, thereby, enabling the opposite party/counter claimant to fill up such gaps in the evidence. Recall of witness and filing additional evidence at such a belated stage is impermissible in the law. The fact that Order 18 Rule 17A of the Code of Civil Procedure was deleted upon an amendment being made to the Code was completely ignored. The learned arbitrator proceeded on the basis that the documents which were left out were relevant and vital, thereby, also making up his mind as to their probative value, before those were filed before him.

5. Reliance has been placed on the decision of K.K. Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy,  (2011) 11 SCC 275, in support of the contention that the Hon’ble Apex Court had deprecated the practice of courts allowing production of evidence which could have been produced by the party if due diligence had been exercised. Documents shall not be allowed to be produced at a later stage of the proceeding, only to fill up any lacuna or gap in the evidence already led.

6. Further reliance was placed in the decision of Bagai Construction vs. Gupta Building Material Store,  (2013) 14 SCC 1, in support of the contention that recall of a witness and filing of additional evidence may be allowed for clarification, but if those documents were not placed on record and brought before the court only at the belated stage, much after the conclusion of the evidence, the lacuna could not be filled up.

7. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the opposite party/counter claimant, raises the question of maintainability of the application on the ground that all orders passed by the learned tribunal may be assailed at the final stage, i.e., when the award is under challenge. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a complete Code. Section 5 of the said Act mandates that courts should adopt a hands off approach. He relies on the decision of Deep Industries Limited vs. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Anr., (2020) 15 SCC 706.

8. The issue before this court is whether the order of the learned arbitrator, permitting the opposite party/counter claimant to file an additional affidavit of evidence of its third witness upon imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/-, is either perverse or without jurisdiction.

9. An interlocutory order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be c