The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of referring the dispute to arbitration and the time limit for filing a written statement. The judgment also emphasizes the applicability of the Original Side Rules, 1997 in governing the procedure for exercise of original civil jurisdiction in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

K.C. Sood, J.—The order will dispose of O.M.P. s No. 32 and 57 of 2004 in Civil Suit No. 52 of 2003 and O.M.P. s No. 12 and 56 of 2004 in Civil Suit No. 51/2003 as parties in both the suits are same and one of the question raised is same in both the suits.

2. O.M.P. No. 32 of 2004 is filed by the defendant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring the dispute raised in civil suit No. 52 of 2003 to the Arbitration. By OMP No. 57 of 2004 in Civil Suit Nos. 52 of 2003 and 56 of 2004 in civil suit No. 51 of 2003 under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code, the plaintiffs pray for closing the defence of the defendant for having failed to file the written statement within the time limited under Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. O.M.P. No. 12 of 2004 (Civil Suit No. 51 of 2003) is filed by the defendant for rejection of the plaint.

3. Plaintiff in civil suit No. 52 of 2003 is M/s. Shobit Construction and another and in civil suit No. 51 of 2003 is Shobit Fabricator and another. The defendant is the same in both the suits.

4. Plaintiff in both the suits claim recovery of the amount due to the plaintiff along with pendente lite and future interest. Relevant facts.

5. In answer to writ summons, Mr. Ramnik Sharma and Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, Advocates appeared for the defendant Company on December 30, 2003 in both the suits, but written statement was not filed. Learned Counsel for the defendant represented that the defendant has not been supplied the documents but the learned Counsel for the plaintiff insisted that the documents have been supplied and affidavit in this respect has already been filed in the Court. Notwithstanding this stand, the Plaintiffs Counsel agreed to supply the copies of the documents on that date itself and the matter was adjourned by the Registrar for filing of the written statement and reply to Misc. Petition No. 386 of 2003 within four weeks. Neither written statement nor reply to the petition was filed by the defendant within the time granted by the Registrar.

6. When the matter came up before the Registrar on March 3, 2004, six weeks time was sought and granted for filing the written statement. The matter was directed to be listed on April 21, 2004. On April 21, 2004, the Registrar found that the written statement was not filed even though the period of six weeks granted to the defendant to file the written statement had expired. Learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff contended that the defendant has lost the right to file written statement in view of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order of the Registrar in civil suit No. 52 of 2003 reads: "30.12.2003: Present: Mr. Sushil Kukreja, Advocate, for the plaintiff. Mr. Ramnik Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, Advocate, for the defendant. The learned Counsel for the defendant states that he has not been supplied with the documents. However, the Counsel for the Plaintiff states that he has supplied the documents and the affidavit has already been filed. The Counsel for the plaintiff states that despite having sent the documents, he will again supply the documents today. Now the matter be listed for filing reply to OMPs No. 386 and 456 of 2003 along with written statement within four weeks. Sd/- (P.C. Sharma) Registrar (Inspection)". 30.12.2003. Similarly, the order of the Registrar in Civil Suit No. 51 of 2003 reads: "30.12.2003: Present: Mr. Sushil Kukreja, Advocate, for the plaintiff . Mr. Ramnik Sharma Advocate, for the defendant alongwith Mr. S.K. Agarwal, Advocate. The learned Counsel for the defendant states that he has not been supplied with the documents. However, the Counsel for the plaintiffs states that he has supplied the documents and the affidavit, has already been filed. The Counsel for the plaintiff states that despite having sent the documents, he will again supply the documents today. Now the matter be listed for filing reply to OMP No. 385/2003 along with written