Chief Engineer vs M/s. Filtrex Engineers and Consultants and Another

K. Kannan, J.—The Revision is against the order allowing for order of dismissal of petition for default passed be restored. The case pending before the court was an application for making the award of the Arbitrator passed under Arbitration Act, 1940 as a rule of the court. The objection appears to have been filed by the revision petitioner herein against passing a decree in terms of the award. The court appears to have dismissed the application for default. The restoration application had been filed beyond 30 days from the time when the order was passed. On an application for restoration, the objection taken before the court below by the present petitioner was that the petition was barred by limitation. This objection was rejected and though the court found that it was admittedly time barred, it still re-opened the case. The revision petition is against the said order. There exists no power for a court to which the case is pending for making an award rule of court to dismiss it for default, even on the absence of the party or the counsel. It is bound to exercise its judicial mind and to see whether the decree is to be passed in terms of the award or there was any objection that could be upheld and which is brought by any party. The dismissal for default, therefore, was a wrong procedure and if the court was re-opening the case, it was bound to do so, irrespective of the fact of whether the application was barred by time or not. At least the court was correcting itself and had opened the case for consideration. This itself was sufficient consolation even for the petitioner that an erroneous order has obtained correction at the right time. The impugned order is, therefore, maintained and the revision petition is dismissed.