VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) BY way of present revision petition challenge is to the order dated 19.8.2005 vide which the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh has been pleased to adjourn the case for arguments instead of recording evidence on the issues already framed by holding that the issues as well as the evidence as already recorded stand effaced.
(2.) THE learned Additional District Judge was pleased to efface the issues and the evidence already led by placing reliance on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in F.C.I. v. Indian Council for Arbitration, 2003(4) RCR(Civil) 411 : 2003(3) SCC 564 and the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar v. Ashok Hans, 2004(3) Arbitration Law Reporter 306 and Sial Brothers v. SBEC System, 2004(3) Arbitration Law Reporter 429. Learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the order on the ground that reliance by the learned Additional District Judge on the authorities above was totally misconceived in view of the fact that this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Section 82 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) has been pleased to frame Rules called the Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh Arbitration and Conciliation Rules, 2003.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on Rules 1 and 2 which reads as under : "(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or these Rules the following provision of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908) shall apply to the proceedings before a Court in so far as those may be applicable thereto, namely :- (i) Sections 28, 31, 35, 35-A, 35-B, 107, 133, 148-A, 149, 151 and 152 and (ii) Orders III, V, VI, IX, XIII, XVI to XIX, XXIV and XLI. (2)(a) For the purpose of facilitating the application of the provisions referred to under sub-section (1) the Court may construe them with such alterations not affecting the substance, as may be necessary or proper to adopt to the matters before it and (b) The Court may, for sufficient reasons, proceed otherwise than in accordance with the said provisions if it is satisfied that the interests of the parties shall not thereby be prejudiced." The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on these rules is that the applications moved under the Act have to be dealt with in accordance with these rules as these rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 82 of the Act, which reads as under :- "Power of the High Court to make rules. - The High Court may make rules consistent with this Act as to all proceedings before the Court under this Act." ;