IMPORTANT POINT
Power conferred on Court under Section 149 of CPC has to be exercised in accordance with settled principles of law and is not to be exercised in a manner conferring unfair advantage on one of parties to litigation.

R.M. Savant, J.—Rule in all the petitions. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard.

2. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the identical orders dated 16.11.2012 passed by the Principal District Judge, South Goa, Margao, by which order, the applications filed by the respondents for being permitted to cross-examine the person, who had sworn the affidavit in the applications filed under Section 149/151 of the CPC i.e. one Dipak Rajani, came to be allowed and the said person i.e. Shri Dipak Rajani was directed to submit himself to cross-examination.

2A. The facts necessary to be cited for the adjudication of the above petitions can be stated thus : The petitioners herein and the respondents were involved in Arbitration Proceedings, which culminated in the declaration of the Award dated 29.03.2008. The petitioners invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Arbitration Act, 1996’ for short) by filing Applications to challenge the said Award passed by the majority of the Arbitrators. The said Arbitration Applications, inter alia, contain an averment that the applications were filed within limitation and have been affixed with fixed Court fee of Rs.20/-. The said Arbitration Applications were presented to the registry of the District Court, South Goa and were admitted to the registry and were numbered as Arbitration Applications No.18, 19 and 20 of 2008.

3. The notice of the Arbitration Applications came to be issued to the respondents herein. On receipt of the said notice, the respondents filed their replies to the said applications on 25.09.2008 and alongwith the replies, the respondents also filed the applications under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC or the provisions analogous thereto for rejection of the applications, inter alia, on various grounds mentioned in the said applications, including the ground that the Court fee paid was not adequate. One of the other grounds was that the said Arbitration Applications were not filed within limitation. To the said applications filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, the petitioners filed their replies. Insofar as the ground of nonpayment of proper Court fee is concerned, the said ground was dealt with in paragraph 10 of the replies filed by the petitioners. In the said paragraph 10, it was averred that the filing clerk of the District Court, on the Arbitration Applications being presented, had informed the Advocate for the petitioners that the requisite Court fee for an application/petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is Rs.20/-. It is further averred that subsequently, it was learnt that the requisite Court fee was Rs.25/- and not Rs.20/- and, therefore, an attempt came to be made to pay the deficit Court fee. However, the filing clerk refused to accept the deficit Court fee without the order of the Court.

4. To the said replies, the respondents herein filed rejoinders dated 25.11.2008. In the said rejoinders, the respondents reiterated their case in the applications filed by them under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. It appears that, thereafter, the said applications filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC were partly argued on 04.12.2009 and, thereafter, were kept for further arguments on 07.01.2010. It appears that on 05.01.2010, the petitioners herein served upon the respondents an application filed under Section 149/151 of the CPC or the principles analogous thereto. Similar applications were filed in the other two Arbitration Applications. The said applications filed under Section 149/151 of the CPC once again contain the statements, which were mentioned in the replies to the applications filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC. The said applications came to be filed on 07.01.2010. Alongwith the applications, the affidavits of the Advocate on record Mr. Vledson L. Braganza, who had filed the Arbitration A