U.C. Srivastava, J. - (1.) This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 24-4-1972 passed by the Arbitrator and order dated 22nd Dec., 1973 passed by the Registrar Cooperative Societies exercising appellate powers partly allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner reducing the amount which was awarded by the opposite party No. 3, Arbitrator, against the opposite party No. 2. The proceedings started at the instance of opposite party No. 2 who filed a money claim for Rs. 3,38,588.96 p. in respect of the Fertiliser Mixture and coal dues before the Registrar Co-operative Societies who referred the matter in dispute to arbitration to opposite party No. 3, Retired Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies.
(2.) The case remained pending before the Arbitrator for more than 2 years. Some twenty hearings took place before the Arbitrator who in his award elaborately detailed the proceedings which took place before him on various dates. From the perusal of the same it appears that after certain proceedings an application was moved by the petitioner for summoning certain records on. which the petitioner was asked to file copies, of the same. Thereafter opposite parties filed* certain documents and the petitioner who had earlier filed a written statement filed another written statement and made a counter claim; and subsequently filed objections and documents in respect of which he had earlier-moved an application for summoning of the records. On a subsequent date an application for amendment was moved by the opposite party No. 1 which was opposed by the petitioner and after hearing the parties the same was allowed on payment of Rs. 150/-as costs which was accepted on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner sought for certain clarifications regarding the items which were also mentioned in the application for amendment. The Arbitrator allowed the claim of opposite party No. 1 to the extent of Rs. 3,86,789.50 p. against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner which was partly allowed and certain deductions were given to the petitioner and the amount so awarded was reduced to Rs. 1,86,950.00.
(3.) Sri Bishun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the order passed by the Arbitrator and the appellate order, even though the appeal was partly allowed, on four grounds : 1. That the Arbitrator wrongly rejected the application filed by the petitioner for-summoning the record. 2. That the amendment application filed by opposite party No. 1 at a late stage was:-wrongly allowed. 3. That the Registrar after granting one-extension became functus officio and the second extension could not have been granted as the same was not permissible under R. 240 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Rules. 4. That as the award was given beyond' time, it was void and all the proceedings were-non est. A perusal of the order passed by the Arbitrator and the appellate order shows that none of the pleas which have been raised in this petition were raised before the Arbitrator or before the appellate authority. It has not been mentioned in the writ petition that such pleas were raised either before the Arbitrator or before the appellate authority, while the appellate authority has not taken the same into cognizance. In view of the fact that these pleas were not raised before the Arbitrator, the petitioner is not entitled to raise them for the first time in the writ petition.;