Punjab-Haryana High Court
Non vs Executive Engineer Huda And Others on 28 January, 2011
Author: M.M.S.Bedi
Bench: M.M.S.Bedi
Review Petition No.2-CII of 2011 in
CM No.3753-CII of 2006 in
CR No.1716 of 1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Decided on: January 28, 2011.
Review Petition No.2-CII of 2011 in
CM No.3753-CII of 2006 in
CR No.1716 of 1999.
M/s Driplex Water Engineering Ltd.
.. Non-applicant-petitioner.
VERSUS
Executive Engineer HUDA and others.
.. Applicants-respondents
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
***
PRESENT Mr.Ajay Kumar Nara, Advocate,
for the applicant.
Mr.Arun Nehra, Advocate,
for the applicants-respondents.
... 1
Review Petition No.2-CII of 2011 in
CM No.3753-CII of 2006 in
CR No.1716 of 1999
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
This order will dispose of a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for review of order dated 07.01.2010, by virtue of which, the application for extension of time for completion of arbitration proceeding was dismissed observing that no such power was vested in this Court from the parent order of Civil Revision No.1716 of 1999, for extension of time. While declining the said request of HUDA, it was observed that dismissal of the application will not prejudice the rights of the parties to avail legal remedies available to them in accordance with law.
The present review petition has been filed on the ground that the judgments cited before this Court in Union of India and others Vs. Aradhana Trading Co. and others, (2002) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 447, and NoharLal Verma Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Jagdalpur, (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 445, have not been considered.
I have heard the counsel for the applicant and reconsidered the circumstances of this case and the applicability of the ratio of judgment in case Aradhana Trading Co. and others (supra). In the said judgment, it has been observed that if a party submits to jurisdiction of a Court, such party cannot later turn around and contend that Court did not have jurisdiction.
I have considered the facts and circumstances of ... 2 Review Petition No.2-CII of 2011 in CM No.3753-CII of 2006 in CR No.1716 of 1999 case Aradhana Trading Co. and others (supra). In the said case, the application for setting aside ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, making the Award rule of the Court stood dismissed and High Court had entered in proceedings for making award rule of the Court.
The other question which was involved in the case was whether High Court was justified in entertaining the proceedings for making the award rule of the Court. The facts and circumstances of the said case are absolutely different from the circumstances of the present case. There has not been any authority vested in the High Court for granting extension of time as such, the ratio of judgment in case Aradhana Trading Co. and others (supra), is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
So far as NoharLal Verma's case (supra), is concerned, the facts and circumstances of the said case are not applicable in this case.
No ground is made out for review.
Dismissed.
(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE January 28, 2011.
rka ... 3