The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable to a proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, and that quoting a wrong provision of law is immaterial if the court had the jurisdiction and the pleadings contain ingredients of the correct legal provision.

These three revision petitions are directed against the Order dated 06.04.2009 in I.A.No.4/2009, 5/2009, 6/2009 in A.O.P.No.32/2008, 33/2008, 34/2008, respectively on the file of the learned District Judge, Nilgiris at Ooty, whereby and whereunder, the applications preferred by the first respondent to permit them to file a reply statement invoking Section 151 CPC were allowed.

2. The facts in all these revisions are identical and as such, the factual matrix as contained in C.R.P.(PD) No.1919/2009 is taken for the purpose of narrating the background facts.

The facts :-

C.R.P.(PD) No.1919/2009 :-

3. The proceedings in A.O.P.No.32/2008 was initiated by the first respondent under Section 34(2)(a) (IV) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act). The prayer in the Arbitration Original petition was to set aside the award passed by the second respondent.

4. In the original petition, the first respondent has detailed the reasons which according to them would be sufficient to set aside the award passed by the second respondent.

5. The original petition was contested by the revision petitioner by filing counter. The petitioner has countered each and every ground taken in the original petition and explained as to why the award of the Arbitrator was not liable to be set aside.

6. While the matters stood thus, the first respondent filed an application in I.A.No.4/2008 under Section 151 CPC seeking the leave of the Court to file a reply statement.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the application in I.A.No.4/2008, it was the contention of the first respondent that the revision petitioner in their counter statement raised serious contentions for which, necessarily, a reply has to be filed which necessitated them in filing the application under Section 151 CPC.

8. The application was resisted by the revision petitioner by filing counter. According to the petitioner, the application under Section 151 CPC was clearly not maintainable. It was further contended that in case the provisions of Civil Procedure Code was applicable to a proceeding before the court under Section 34 of the Act, the first respondent should have filed an application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. It was their further contention that under the guise of reply statement, the first respondent has raised new grounds and by way of those grounds, the award was sought to be set aside, which was not permissible in law. The decision of the Judge :-

9. The learned Trial Judge was of the view that there was no specific provision in the Act to file counter in the Arbitration Original Petition. However, the petitioner was permitted to file counter and in the same way, the first respondent should also be permitted to file reply statement for the purpose of denying the averments as contained in the counter. The learned Trial Judge was also of the view that in case the revision petitioner was aggrieved on account of new grounds being taken in the reply statement, the remedy was only to challenge them in the arbitration proceeding. Accordingly, the application was allowed. Aggrieved by the said Order, the unsuccessful first respondent is before this Court.

Submissions :-

10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of revision petitioner contended that the first respondent was not entitled to raise additional grounds by way of rejoinder except by way of taking leave from the Court as provided under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the trial Court proceeded on the basis that Civil Procedure Code was not applicable to a proceeding under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the question of invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC does not arise.

11. The learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the learned District Judge was having jurisdiction to allow the parties to file subsequent pleadings. According to the learned counsel, when the Court has got jurisdiction to receive add