JUDGMENT :

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.

1. The present is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking setting aside of the order dated 24.01.2026 (Annexure P- 1) passed by learned Sole Arbitrator vide which the application filed by the petitioners seeking direction to respondent No.1 to give his specimen signatures and handwriting on record for getting the same compared with his signatures on the other documents was dismissed.

2. The present civil revision petition challenges the procedural order dated 24.01.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Sole Arbitrator.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while giving brief facts of the present case has submitted that a Partnership Deed dated 21.07.2019 (Annexure P-7) was executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and the said Partnership Deed contains a valid arbitration clause i.e. Clause 16, which provides that in case of any dispute or misunderstanding between the parties, the same shall be referred to Arbitrators and the award shall be final and binding upon the partners under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). He further submitted that when a dispute arose between the parties, respondent No.1 filed an application bearing ARB-531-2023, under Section 11(6) of the Act and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.09.2024 (Annexure P-2) appointed the Sole Arbitrator, who is a retired District and Sessions Judge. Thereafter, the arbitral proceedings commenced.

4. Respondent No.1 is the claimant and the petitioners are the respondents before learned Sole Arbitrator. After the claim was filed, the proceedings commenced and evidence of respondent No.1 was completed and thereafter, at the stage of petitioners’ evidence (Respondents before learned Sole Arbitrator), the petitioners filed an application vide Annexure P-8 dated 10.01.2026 seeking a direction to respondent No.1 (claimant) to give his specimen signatures and handwriting on record for getting the same compared with his signatures on the Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.10.2019 and Retirement-cum-Partnership deed dated 07.04.2023. However, learned Sole Arbitrator has rejected the aforesaid application by passing the impugned order dated 24.01.2026, which is challenged in the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not been afforded a fair opportunity of hearing by learned Sole Arbitrator inasmuch as there was a requirement to obtain specimen signatures of respondent No.1 to prove the authenticity of the aforesaid execution of Memorandum of Understanding dated 04.10.2019 as well as the Retirement-cum-Partnership deed dated 07.04.2023 and some other documents. However, in absence thereof, the petitioners, who are the respondents before learned Sole Arbitrator are unable to prove their case. It was therefore necessary to seek a direction requiring respondent No.1 to furnish his specimen signatures and handwriting for further comparison with the aforesaid documents, but learned Sole Arbitrator declined the same. Therefore, the present revision petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have no alternate remedy available to them for challenging the aforesaid order because the impugned order is a procedural order passed by learned Sole Arbitrator and therefore, the extraordinary powers of this Court have been invoked under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the said order. In this regard, he referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in “Bhaven Construction through Authorized Signatory Premji Bhai K. Shah Vs. Executive Engineers, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and another” (2022) 1 SCC 75 wherein it was held that even if there is a statutory provision barring any procedure