- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.10.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby objection petition filed by him under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for setting aside the arbitration award dated 12.6.2006 stands dismissed for want of prosecution. He has also challenged the order dated 20.9.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the aforementioned Court dismissing his application for recalling the order dated 1.10.2011. For the reasons that the case was called several times during the course of the day and neither the authorized representative of the petitioner was present nor any of its witness, learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh considered it appropriate to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. The petitioner then filed an application for recalling the aforementioned order on the ground that he had wrongly noted the date as 10.12.2011 instead of 1.10.2011 and for that reason, he could not put in appearance before the lower Court on 1.10.2011. That application was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that neither the counsel for the petitioner had placed on record the copy of his case diary nor the photocopy of the brief in order to substantiate his contention.
(2.) The present revision came up for preliminary hearing on 12.12.2012, when after hearing counsel for the petitioner, notice was issued to respondent No. 1 only. On the next date, i.e. 23.1.2013, none appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 despite service having been effected. In the interest of justice, the hearing of the case was adjourned for today. Once again, none has put in appearance for respondent No. 1.
(3.) It is true that neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present before the lower Court on 1.10.2011. Even no evidence of the petitioner was available to be examined by the lower Court.;