- (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Senior Sub Judge, Hoshirpur, whereby application for amendment of the written statement was allowed vide order dated May 3, 1988.
(2.) THE petitioner M/s. Mahavir Spinning Mills filed application under S. 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act for filing in Court the arbitration agreement. The said application was allowed and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The matter remained pending for about three years before the Arbitrator and when it reached the stage of arguments, the respondents moved an application in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur for amendment of the reply dated April 9, 1985 filed in the application under S. 20 of the Act. That application was resisted on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds that no such application was maintainable and the Court had no jurisdiction to decide the same. However, the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur took the view that the Court had the inherent jurisdiction to decide the application and since according to the learned Senior Sub Judge, the respondent did not want to introduce new things except to specify the claim in detail, he allowed the amendment sought for. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the application under S. 20 of the Act was decided the Court had become functus officio and the said order was appealable under S. 39 of the Act. According to the learned counsel sub-sec. (5) of S. 20 of the Arbitration Act provides that thereafter the arbitration shall proceed in accordance with, and shall be governed by, the other provisions of this Act so far as they can be made applicable. Thus, argued the learned counsel that after the matter was finally decided by the Court under S. 20 of the Act, the Court had no jurisdiction to pass any order as such. Thus, the Court has acted illegally with material irregularities in exercise of its jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he referred to Bhikhari Lal v. Dibyasingh Brahma, AIR 1965 Orissa 101 and Indian Minerals Co. v. Northern India Lime Marketing Association, AIR 1958 AH 692.
(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent referred to Kundan Lal v. Mehtab Ram, AIR 1980 Punj and Har 182.;