Union Of India And Another vs M/S Girdhari Lal And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 380 P&H

CR No.3872 of 2013(O&M)                                                 1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH


                              Reserved on 24.11.2022

                              CR No.3872 of 2013 (O&M)
                              Date of Decision: 10.01.2023



Union of India and another
                                                    ......Petitioners
       Vs

M/s Girdhari Lal and another
                                                    .....Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH



Present:Mr. Deepak Malhotra, Advocate
        for the petitioners.

        Mr. Gulshan Mehta, Advocate
        for respondent No.1.


            ****


RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.

[1]. The petitioners have preferred this revision petition

against the judgment dated 21.11.2012 passed by the

Additional District Judge, Hisar, dismissing the appeal of the

petitioners and upholding the judgment dated 27.09.2010

passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, whereby the

1 of 4

objections filed by the petitioners against the award were

dismissed.

[2]. An application under Section 151 CPC for condonation

of delay of 69 days in filing the revision petition has also been

filed along with the revision petition.

[3]. Vide order dated 27.09.2010 passed by the Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Hisar, the award dated 16.06.2003 passed by

the Arbitrator (Col. D.B. Gade, Additional Chief Engineer, Office

of CE (AF), Allahabad) was made rule of the Court. Respondent

No.1 was held entitled for interest @ 15% per annum from

27.09.2010 till final realisation. The objections filed by the

objectors/present petitioners against the award were dismissed.

[4]. Against the aforesaid order dated 27.09.2010 passed

by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hisar, the appeal was

preferred before the Additional District Judge, Hisar. The appeal

was dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2012 by the Additional

District Judge, Hisar on the premise that the appeal against the

judgment of Civil Judge (Senior Division) has very limited scope

in terms of Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 of the Act

prescribes that where the Court sees no cause to remit the

award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for

reconciliation or to set aside the award, the Court shall, after the

time for making an application to set aside the award has

expired, or such application having been made, after refusing it,

2 of 4

proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award, and

upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow, and no

appeal shall lie from such decree except on the ground that it is

in excess of, or not otherwise in accordance with the award. The

main argument of the petitioners is against the award itself on

the ground that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself and

had allowed extra amount to the contractor for extraneous

consideration. The evidence has not been correctly appreciated

and legal position has been misapplied. The grounds taken in

the appeal were found to be misplaced as the same were not

available to the petitioners in the appeal in view of Section 17 of

the Act. The award announced by the Arbitrator has already

been made rule of the Court without any modification and there

is no question of decree being in excess of or not in accordance

with the award. The objections under Section 30 of the Act were

considered, wherein issues were framed and both the parties

led their evidence. After consideration of the case on merits, the

same were dismissed by the trial Court by passing the order

dated 27.09.2010, thereby making the award rule of the Court.

[5]. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court over the

impugned judgments. There is no patent illegality or

jurisdictional error in passing the impugned orders and the same

do not call for any interference. This revision petition is found to

be totally devoid of merits and the same is accordingly

3 of 4

dismissed. Since the main revision petition has been decided on

merits, therefore, there is no necessity of passing any separate

order in CM No.14057-CII of 2013 for condonation of delay in

filing the revision petition and the same is accordingly disposed

of.

10.01.2023                                 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Prince                                           JUDGE

Whether Reasoned/Speaking                          Yes/No

Whether Reportable                                 Yes/No




                              4 of 4