VINEY MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Revisions No. 433 and 434 of 2002 as the common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Civil Revision No. 433 of 2002.
(2.) AN application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the applicant-petitioners for exclusion of the period spent by them for filing an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. An application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was filed by the respondent-M/s. Associates Construction Company against the Punjab Agricultural University and its Executive Engineer (the present petitioners). A prayer was made by the applicant for appointment of an Arbitrator by the Court. Additionally, it was prayed that since under clause 25-A of the agreement, the Chief Engineer of the University was the named Arbitrator, and the aforesaid Chief Engineer was the Chairman of the Tender Purchase Committee, therefore, the aforesaid Chief Engineer may not be named as an Arbitrator. This application filed by respondent No. 1 was contested by the University and its Executive Engineer. Various objections were raised to the maintainability of the application. On the merits of the controversy, a specific objection was taken that since under Clause 25-A of the agreement it was the Chief Engineer who was the named Arbitrator, therefore, the applicant could not ask for the change of the Arbitrator on the ground of his being an officer of the University. It ws further the case of the University that Shri H.S. Shekhon who was the Chief Engineer of the University was the only person who could arbitrate between the parties and, therefore, the application filed by respondent No. 1 was not maintainable.
(3.) THE learned trial court observed that since there was dispute between the parties which needed to be referred to the Arbitrator and because of the facts brought on the record by the applicant, it was not proper to refer the same to the arbitration of Shri H.S. Shekhon. Instead the parties were asked to supply the list of three experienced persons who could be appointed as an Arbitrator. Vide order dated February 21, 2002, the learned trial Court asked the parties to agree on two names from the joint list submitted by the parties. The aforesaid order dated February 21, 2000 passed by the learned trial Court was challenged by the present petitioners by filing an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. The matter was pending before the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana when it was realised that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the appeal. Accordingly, the present petition has been filed to challenge the aforesaid order.;