JUDGMENT :

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned District and Sessions Judge (Retd.), who is the Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No.563 of 2023 vide which the application dated 20.08.2025 filed by the petitioner for recalling and cross-examination of the witnesses of the claimant has been rejected.

2. Mr. Vinish Singla, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a Contract between the petitioner and the respondent wherein there was an Arbitration Clause and thereafter, a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was filed and a Sole Arbitrator was appointed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.04.2024 (Annexure P-2). He further submitted that thereafter the arbitral proceedings commenced and the petitioner also participated in the same. However, at the very beginning, talks of mediation and compromise talks were also going on between the parties. Before the learned Sole Arbitrator, the petitioner was the respondent whereas the respondent herein was the claimant. He also submitted that the claim as well as the affidavit of the respondent/claimant was filed on 16.01.2025 and at that point of time, the settlement/compromise talks were going on between the parties. When the matter came up for hearing before the learned Sole Arbitrator on 23.04.2025 for evidence of the claimant, the aforesaid witness was not cross-examined by the petitioner and as per the procedural order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, it has been so observed that the cross-examination is nil and opportunity was granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, the remaining two witnesses also appeared on 28.05.2025 for examination-in-chief and on that date, both were not cross-examined by the petitioner. In this regard, he referred to both the orders which have been attached with the present petition as Annexures P-11 & P-12.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not supplied with the list of the witnesses in advance by the respondent/claimant and the petitioner wished to examine all the witnesses not in piece meal but in one go and apart from the above, another reason as to why the witnesses of the claimant were not examined was that the talks of compromise were also going on simultaneously which eventually failed and now the right of the petitioner for cross-examination of the witnesses has been forfeited and the evidence has also been closed. He submitted that only one opportunity has been granted to the petitioner to cross-examine all the three witnesses of the claimant. He also submitted that the petitioner has no other efficacious remedy available to him in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

4. Mr. Rishabh Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent/Caveator/Claimant submitted that a perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P-1) along with the orders which have been attached by the petitioner itself as Annexures P-11 & P-12 would show the entire sequence of events. While referring to the impugned order (Annexure P-1) whereby the application of the petitioner for cross-examination of the witnesses of the claimant was declined, he submitted that the claimant/respondent filed an affidavit of its first witness on 16.01.2025 and a copy of the same was also supplied to the petitioner on that very day itself. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 06.02.2025 and then to 20.02.2025 i.e. the date on which the matter was fixed for mediation and compromise between the parties. Since no compromise was effected between the parties, the matter was posted by the learned Sole Arbitrator for 23.04.2025 for evidence of the claimant and on that date, learned counsel for the petitioner was also present which is clear from the order (Annexur