VINEY MITTAL, J. - (1.) IN view of the law laid down in the case of Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society Nagpur v. M/s. Swaraj Development and others, JT 2003(4) SC 255 : 2003(2) RCR(Civil) 676 (SC), the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable.
(2.) FACED with this difficulty, the learned counsel submits that the present revision petition be treated as petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The prayer made by the learned counsel is allowed. The applicant-M/s. Bathinda Construction Company who had filed an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance Act, 1996 for referring claim No. 4 to an Arbitrator is aggrieved against the order dated February 28, 2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda and has filed the present revision petition.
(3.) THE applicant-petitioner claims that it had entered into a contract for special repair of roads at Bathinda Military Station. As per clause No. 70, in case of any dispute between the parties, the same was to be referred to an Arbitrator to be appointed by respondent No. 1-Chief Engineer. A dispute arose between the parties. The applicant requested the respondents to appoint an Arbitrator. However, the respondents did not appoint any such Arbitrator. Therefore, an application under Section 11 of the Act was filed.;