ORDER :

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore District, Vellore at Ranipet dated 17.09.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in AR.O.P.No.1 of 2015.

2. The revision petitioner herein entered into a contract dated 08.12.2011 with the respondent and the respondent herein was to supply ten tonne mobile cranes/ on tonnage basis for material handling at the rate of Rs.44/- per ton. Disputes arose at the time when the contract was about to be completed. The respondent made various claims and the revision petitioner disputed such claims.

3. Thereafter, the respondent raised a dispute before the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of a sole Arbitrator. As provided under the agreement, as against the claim for a sum of Rs.2,13,51,346.19/-, the revision petitioner also made a counter claim for a sum of Rs.3,31,36,000/-. The Arbitral Tribunal considering the facts, documents and arguments of both sides was pleased to pass an award dated 09.04.2015. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the claim of the respondent and the counter claim of the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the award of the Arbitral Tribunal dated 09.04.2015, the revision petitioner as well the respondent filed independent application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). The revision petitioner is the applicant in the application in AR.O.P.No. 3 of 2015 filed before the II Additional District Judge at Ranipet, Vellore District. The respondent is the applicant in AR.O.P.No.1 of 2015 filed before the same Court. After presenting the AR.O.P. on 13.06.2015, the respondent filed I.A.No.1 of 2019 seeking permission to amend the arbitration petition filed under Section 34 of the Act.

5. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the amendments are not only to correct certain errors and mistakes in the cause title but also to introduce additional grounds. Therefore, the said application was opposed by the revision petitioner on the ground that such amendments introducing new facts or pleading is not permissible. However, the lower Court allowed the application filed by the respondent by order dated 17.09.2019 and therefore, the revision petitioner has preferred the above Civil Revision Petition.

6. Mr.V.Karthik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.John Zachariah, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted the following points:

(i) The lower Court failed to see that the application for amendment introducing new ground cannot be entertained at the belated stage after the limitation for filing an application under Section 34 itself is over.

(ii) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) would not apply to the proceedings either before the Arbitrator or before the lower Court when the petition is filed under Section 34 of the Act.

(iii) Though it is permissible in law that some error in figures or typographical mistakes can be corrected by way of amendment, the deletion and inclusion of substantial pleading and grounds, which are not raised at the time of filing the application, cannot be entertained.

(iv) The respondent is trying to introduce entirely new grounds based on new facts by way of amendment and the lower Court has, in fact, allowed the respondent to reopen the proceedings by allowing new grounds which were not taken at the first instance.

7. From the narration of events and submissions on the legal issues raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, one of the issues that arise for consideration before this Court is whether the lower Court has power to entertain an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. Several arguments are advanced and precedents cited before this Court.

8. This Court is able to see that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in several cases recognized the application for amendment of an application under Section 34 of the Act under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. In particular, a le