ORDER :

Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.

1. Petitioner/Non-applicant, by the instant revision petition under Section 115 CPC, has laid challenge to order dated 05.04.2016 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 2, Udaipur (for short, 'learned Court below'). The learned Court below, by the impugned order, rejected petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), for setting aside arbitral award, filed on behalf of non-petitioner/applicant.

2. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that there existed business relations between rival parties and during subsistence of these relations a dispute cropped up. Considering the dispute arbitrable, on behalf of petitioner an application under Section 11 of the Act is preferred before High Court of Delhi. After hearing the application, Delhi High Court appointed Retd. Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court Shri Mukul Mudgal as sole arbitrator. Likewise, non-petitioner/applicant too made endeavour to agitate its cause before this Court for referring the dispute to the arbitrator. This Court, vide judgment/order dated 8th of August, 2012, disposed of non-petitioner's application under Section 11 of the Act. Order dated 08.08.2012 reads as under:

"By the judgment dated 07.01.2011 in Arb. P. 24/2010 and I.A. 13666/2010 filed by M/s. Indian Potash Limited the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi appointed Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, retired Chief Justice, Punjab & Haryana High Court, as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute arising out of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 10.9.2008.

A Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 5836/2011 then was filed by the present applicant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking reference of several other MoUs too inter alia to the same arbitrator. The respondent has already agreed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to get the dispute arising out of other MoUs dated 15.3.2001, 15.3.2002, 12.3.2003, 29.3.2004, 05.5.2005, 30.3.2006, 24.3.2007 and 10.9.2008 adjudicated by the arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal, retired Chief Justice, Punjab & Haryana High Court, sole arbitrator appointed under the order dated 7.1.2011 in Arbitration Case No. 24/2010 & I.A. No. 13666/2010 is appointed as arbitrator to adjudicate all claims and counter claims of the parties arising out of all the MoUs referred above. The fee of the learned arbitrator shall be paid in accordance with the schedule of fees prescribed under the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre Rules. A copy of this order be communicated to the Arbitrator.

Both the parties are directed to approach Hon'ble the Supreme Court to take corrective action accordingly.

The arbitration application is disposed of."

3. As per agreed order dated 8th August, 2012, the sole arbitrator conducted arbitral proceedings at Delhi and followed all procedures/norms in adherence of Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre Rules. The sole arbitrator also charged his fee as per Delhi Rules. Upon conclusion of the proceedings, sole arbitrator passed award on 21.08.2015 whereby claim of the non-petitioner was repudiated and counter-claim of the petitioner is partly accepted. Feeling dismayed with the arbitral award dated 21st of August, 2015, non-petitioner Bohra Industries Ltd. approached District Judge, Udaipur for setting aside arbitral award by invoking Section 34 of the Act. Subsequently, the petition under Section 34 of the Act, submitted by the non-petitioner, was transferred for disposal to the learned Court below.

4. Upon receipt of notice from learned Court below on non-petitioner's petition aforesaid, the petitioner appeared to oppose it. In its endeavour to resist the petition under Section 34 of the Act, petitioner laid an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, questioning learned Court below's jurisdiction. Joining issue with the petitioner, the non-petitioner contested the application.