JUDGMENT :

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. 

1. The present is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the order dated 31.01.2026 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Arbitrator vide which the application of the petitioner for additional evidence has been dismissed being not maintainable.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an agreement was executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1, which contains a valid arbitration clause. Consequently, the arbitration proceedings started before learned Sole Arbitrator. By way of the procedural order dated 31.01.2026 (Annexure P-8), which is challenged in the present revision petition, learned Sole Arbitrator dismissed the petitioner's application seeking permission to adduce additional evidence by examining a witness from the Food Corporation of India (FCI). He further submitted that the respondent No.1, who is a rice miller, was obligated to convert paddy into rice and supply the same to the FCI. However, the FCI raised allegations that the supplied rice was Beyond Rejection Limit (BRL). Therefore, the petitioner, being the procurement agency, received a notice from the FCI directing it to make good the deficiency on account of the sub-standard quality of rice supplied. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed an application before learned Sole Arbitrator seeking summoning of a witness from the FCI to adduce additional evidence, which has been declined by learned Sole Arbitrator vide impugned order dated 31.01.2026 (Annexure P- 8). Hence, the present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the aforesaid order (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Sole Arbitrator.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The petitioner and respondent No.1 are parties to the dispute before learned Sole Arbitrator, in respect of which, arbitral proceedings have commenced. By way of the impugned order (Annexure P-8), learned Sole Arbitrator has not permitted the petitioner herein, who is the respondent before the Sole Arbitrator, to lead additional evidence or to summon any witness of the Food Corporation of India (FCI). A perusal of the impugned order would show that the aforesaid procedural order has been passed on merits of the case whereas learned counsel for the petitioner has made a prayer in the present revision petition that the aforesaid application has been dismissed being not maintainable. Although one of the reasonings so given by learned Sole Arbitrator is that the Food Corporation of India (FCI) was not a party to the agreement, but it is not a case that only because of this reason the aforesaid application of the petitioner has been dismissed by learned Sole Arbitrator. A perusal of the procedural order would show that the application of the petitioner/prayer of the petitioner was dismissed on merits of the case by observing that the examining of a witness of the FCI in these proceedings would not serve any useful purpose and thereafter, in the operative part it was also observed that there is no merit in the application and the same is dismissed. In this way, learned Sole Arbitrator has dismissed the application after discussing merits of the case.

5. The petitioner is therefore challenging a procedural order which has been passed by learned Sole Arbitrator. The law in this regard as to whether the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should entertain such a petition impugning the procedural order passed by learned Sole Arbitrator is no longer res integra. The provisions of Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), which provide for minimal judicial interference, are reproduced as under:-

“5. Extent of judicial intervention.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene