- (1.) Challenge in the present revision is to an order passed by learned Additional District Judge on 14.3.2011 (Annexure P-2), whereby in an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act'), the learned Court has framed the issues and fixed the case for evidence of the objector relying upon the judgment of learned Single judge of this court reported as Amrik Singh and another v. Vardhan Properties Investment Ltd., 2007 145 PunLR 294,
(2.) The challenge to the said order is in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Fiza Developers & Inter-Trade P. Ltd. v. AMCI (I) Pvt. Ltd, 2009 17 SCC 796, wherein it has been held that an application under Section 34 of the Act cannot be tried as a regular civil suit and the procedure adopted by the learned Court in framing the issues is not correct. It is argued that calling upon the objector to lead evidence negates the very object of the Act for expeditious conclusion of the disputes with minimal interference by the Courts.
(3.) When the matter came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge of this Court on 7.5.2012, learned Single Judge expressed reservation with the judgment relied upon by the learned trial Court. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Fiza Developers' case , the following question was framed for the decision by the Larger Bench: - "Whether issues as contemplated under Order 14 Rule 1 CPC should be framed in application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996, keeping in view of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh Arbitration and Conciliation Rules, 2003.?;