J.V. Gupta, J.@mdashThis petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Ambala, dated 3.5.1989 whereby the order of
the trial Court dated 15.12.1988 regarding the matter referred to the arbitration was maintained.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration. There is an application was filed u/s 34 of the Arbitration Act on behalf of the defendant. According to
the defendant, the plaintiff is a consumer and he runs Paper Industry and had executed an application-cum-agreement in favour of defendant-bank
containing standard terms and conditions and supply of electrical energy at time when electricity connection was given to him. Clause 29 of the said
agreement pertains to arbitration of disputes between the Board and consumer and in the event of any difference of dispute arising as to the
interpretation of these conditions, the matter shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Act or by reference tot he Chief Engineer
(P& C), H.S.E.B. or his nominee not below the rant of Superintending Engineer. The application was contested on behalf of the plaintiff though
execution of the said agreement was admitted. According to the plaintiff, he is challenging the conditions subsequently issued after the introduction
of voluntary disclosure scheme and, therefore, the matter could not be referred to the Chief Engineer. The trial Court came to the conclusion that
disputed matter clearly covered by clause 29 of the agreement between the parties and consequently referred the matter to the arbitrator
thereunder vide order dated 15.12.1988. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala maintained the said order of the trial Court and
observed that ""1 am of the view that it has never been the case of the plaintiff-appellant that provision of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, is not
attracted in this case, nor it is the case of the parties that the respondent-defendants participated in the proceedings. Moreover, this plea was not
raised by the plaintiff-appellant in its reply to the application u/s. 34 of the Act. I am of the consideration opinion that the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant are attractive but not tenable. Thus, the respondent is entitled to the benefit of provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration
Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if this objection was not raised in the reply to the application u/s 34 of the Act, the
same being legal objections, could be raised by the petitioner at any time. The view taken by the Courts below in this behalf, according to the
learned counsel, was wrong and illegal. In support of his contention, he referred to M/s.Billaspur Industries Limited, Yamunanagar v. Haryana
State Electricity Board, Chandigarh, 1988(2) PLR 245.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. The two courts below have exercised their jurisdiction u/s
34 of the Arbitration Act in favour of the defendant-Board''and against the plaintiff. I do not find any justification for interference in the said
discretion exercised by the two Courts below. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.
