J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Hissar, dated July 21, 1989, whereby amendment was allowed in the reply filed to the application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, (hereinafter called the Act).
(2.) The petitioner Sham Sunder Industries filed an application under Section 20 of the Act, on October 19, 1987. Reply thereto was filed on November 19, 1987. The said application was finally disposed of on December 11 1987, with the observations : "The petition is under section 20 of the Arbitration Act. It is not opposed that the matter be referred to the arbitrator. As per agreement between the parties, the matter is referred to the arbitrator, Chief Engineering B.N.C. HSEB Hissar." When the proceedings were still pending before the arbitrator, the Haryana State Electricity Board filed the application dated January 11, 1988, for amending the reply filed in the application earlier under section 20 of the Act. According to the averments made therein it was pleaded that there was dispute relating to the bill amounting to Rs. 619,749.77. The above amount related to the period from January, 1986 to May, 1987, but inadvertently, the above period ms written as January, 1987 to May, 1987 instead of January, 1986 to May, 1986. Therefore, the Board wanted to make the amendment in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the reply. That application was contested on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Subordinate Judge found that since the arbitrator had not decided the matter, in dispute, it will be presumed that the proceedings were still pending and that the amendment in reply to the application could be allowed as the mistake appeared to be a clerical mistake. Consequently, the said amendment was allowed on payment of Rs. 100/- as costs.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the proceedings had come to an end under section 20 of the Act, no such application for amendment was maintainable. The remedy, if any, was by way of an appeal against the said order dated December 11, 1987. It was further submitted that when no proceedings were pending, the application as such could not be filed. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Union of India v. M.S. Grewal & Co., AIR 1968 Calcutta 333 .;