Abdul Hadi, J. - (1.) A short legal point is alone involved in those two appeals arising out of arbitration proceedings. The point is, whether an arbitrator has power to send for the documents required by any of the parties before him. The appellant's contention is that an arbitrator has no such power and the party requiring any document to be sent for could only move the court for necessary directions. But the contention of the respondent is that an arbitrator himself has such a power.
(2.) THE facts which are necessary for the disposal of those two appeals may now be stated: THE dispute is between the contractor, the respondent in both the appeals, and the Superintending Engineer, National Highways, Salem, who is the appellant in both the appeals. Since the contractor could not carry on the work, the appellant terminated the contract. According to the contractor, he could not carry on the work because the appellant who had to supply hot mix plant pavers, etc., did not supply them. THE dispute was referred to the named arbitrator, who passed an award rejecting the claim of the contractor that the Government (Appellant) should supply the same and holding that the stand of the Government was correct. Hence, O.P.No.160 of 1978 was filed by the contractor to set aside the award dated 19.7.1978 and also O.P.No.228 of 1980 to prevent the Government from enforcing the bank guarantee given by him till the disposal of the O.P.No.228 of 1980. By a common order dated 25.10.1984 both O.P.Nos.160 of 1978 and 228 of 1980 were allowed in that in O.P.No.160 of 1978 the award was set aside and remitted back to the arbitrator for fresh disposal according to law, in the light of the observations made in that order and in the light of additional documents produced by both parties. As against order in O.P.No.160 of 1978, A.A.O.No.340 of 1985 has been preferred and as against the order in O.P.No.228 of 1980, A.A.O.No.341 of 1985 has been filed by the appel-lant. The ground on which the abovesaid common order was passed by the court below is that since the required documents were not sent for by the arbitrator, there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record causing prejudice to the contractor which amount to a legal misconduct by the arbitrator.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contends that the arbitrator has no such power to send for any relevant document required by any of the parties and if at all the party requiring the document could only move the civil court for getting necessary directions and that the arbitrator himself could not send for the document. But, on the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/contractor drew our attention to three decisions, which we find, support his contention that the arbitrator has such power to send for the documents.;