ORDER :- This petition in revision by the District Co-operative Federation Ltd. Mandi is directed against an appellate judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Mandi and Chamba districts, affirming an order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge Mandi refusing to set aside an award made by Shri Kedar Ishwar, then Advocate at Mandi.

2. An agreement Ex. P-1 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent whereby the latter agreed to transport and supply firewood, charcoal etc. One of the terms of the agreement was that if any dispute will arise between the parties with regard to the supply and transport of firewood etc., it will be referred to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, vide clause 11. A dispute did arise between the parties and an application was filed by the respondent for the tiling of the agreement of reference in Court. The application was opposed but ultimately the dispute between the parties was referred to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, who expressed his unwillingness to arbitrate on account of his being busy otherwise. The respondent thereat served a notice under Sec. 8 of the Arbitration Act, hereinafter to be referred as the Act on the petitioner to select an arbitrator out of a panel of three names mentioned therein. In reply the petitioner contended that no other arbitrator could be appointed in place of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies.

Thereupon the respondent filed an application under Sec. 8 of the Act in the Court and requested that it may appoint one of the three persons named therein as an arbitrator. This application was also opposed by the petitioner on the same ground on which the previous notice under Sec. 8 was opposed. The objection was repelled by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge and be referred the case to Shri Kedar Ishwar as an arbitrator. The petitioner filed an application in revision to this Court against the aforesaid order and also prayed for a stay order.

Such an order was passed by this Court but before it could be communicated to the Court below the arbitrator had submitted his award. The petitioner thereat filed objections to the award and requested this Court to keep the application in revision pending. On the dismissal of the objections the petitioner did not press the application in revision which was accordingly dismissed. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of the dismissal of the objections which, as has already been seen, was rejected and the present revision petition was filed.

3. The first question that has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh had not refused to arbitrate. A reference to the reply which the Registrar, Co-operative Societies had sent would make it abundantly clear that he had expressed his unwillingness to arbitrate and had requested the Court to appoint another arbitrator. In reply to the notice under Sec. 8 of the Act, the petitioner again did not dispute that the Registrar had refused to arbitrate.

4. The second contention that has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is that after the agreement Ex. P-1 was filed the Court became functus officio and it was not within its province to entertain the award made by Shri Kedar Ishwar. This objection again is barren of substance. Since it was the Court which had referred the matter in dispute to the arbitrator the award also was to be filed in the Court.

5. The next contention that has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that after the refusal of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to arbitrate the Court had no jurisdiction to appoint another arbitrator and the provisions of Sec. 8 of the Act were not applicable to an application filed under Sec. 20. In support of the aforesaid contention reliance was placed upon the ruling reported in Firm Salig Ram-Bhagat Ram v. Firm Kishen Singh Sant Ram, AIR 1938 Lah 859.

The decision of the aforesaid case turned upon th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document