Orissa High Court
(An Application Under Section 115 Of The ... vs Executive Engineer on 26 March, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CVREV No.422 of 1982
(An application under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908)
D. Brahma .... Petitioner
-versus-
Executive Engineer, National .... Opposite Parties
Highway Division, Cuttack and
another
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - None
For Opposite Parties - Mr. G. Mohanty,
Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :05.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment :26.03.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC,
1908 has been filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the
impugned order dated 10.05.1982 passed in O.S. No.64 of 1981-I by the
learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar.
2. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the
petitioner for filing of the same is that, the petitioner in this revision is the
sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide O.S. No.64 of 1981-I
and the opposite parties in this revision are the defendants before the Trial
Court in the said suit.
The suit vide O.S. No.64 of 1981-I is a suit under Section 20 of the
Arbitration Act, 1940.
3. As per the order dated 10.05.1982, the learned Subordinate Judge,
Bhubaneswar appointed Sri S.C. Sahoo, S.E., R. & B. Circle, Berhampur
for deciding the disputes between parties on the basis of the arbitration
clause in the agreement between the parties, to which, the plaintiff
challenged by filing this revision praying for setting aside the said Order
dated 10.05.1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar
in O.S. No.64 of 1981-I on the ground that, when both the parties are
agreed to appoint Sri S.K. Das as arbitrator, the learned Trial Court as per
Order dated 10.05.1982 should not have appointed Sri S.C. Sahoo, S.E.,
R. & B. Circle, Berhampur as arbitrator to decide the disputes between
the parties.
4. I have heard only from the learned Standing Counsel for the
opposite parties/defendants, as none appeared from the side of the
petitioner to participate in the hearing of this revision.
5. When the impugned Order dated 10.05.1982 passed by the learned
Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar in O.S. No.64 of 1981-I is going to
show that, the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar has appointed Sri
S.C. Sahoo, S.E., R. & B. Circle, Berhampur as arbitrator for deciding the
disputes between parties by referring the matters of the suit vide O.S.
No.64 of 1981-I to him on the basis of the arbitration clause in the
agreement between parties, then at this juncture, the said Order dated
10.05.1982 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar in
O.S. No.64 of 1981-I cannot be held as erroneous.
6. Therefore, there is no justification under law for making
interference with the same through this revision filed by the petitioner.
7. As such, there is no merit in the revision of the petitioner. The
same must fail.
8. In result, the revision filed by the petitioner is dismissed on merit.
9. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
26.03.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 26-Mar-2025
17:22:01
