Full Judgment
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. By Review Application accompanied with an application for condensation of delay, the respondent-DDA seeks review of the order dated 17th December, 2003 by which the Court appointed the former Engineer Member of the DDA as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. This order was passed in an application moved under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act.
2. Notice of the main AA No.235/03 had been issued on 19th November, 2003, returnable on 17th December, 2003 with a clear stipulation that on the date specified, the petition would be disposed of. The petition being one under Section 11 normally, as per the dictum of the Supreme Court sending of the notice is not mandatory. The notice itself is required to be sent by way of intimation. Be that as it may, in this case, the Court proceeded to appoint the arbitrator despite the request by counsel for further time in view of the distressing facts. The petitioner had come to the Court as far back in the year 1997 seeking the 'expeditious remedy of arbitration'. Arbitral resolution has been kept at bay although six years have gone back. Vide order dated 28th October, 1998 a direction was issued for appointment of an arbitrator. Pursuant thereto the DDA appointed Mr.Som Dev as an arbitrator, who relinquished charge upon his superannuating in March, 2002. Thereafter Mr.P.S. Mathur was appointed as an arbitrator, who also relinquished charge on 20th June, 2003. The petitioner called upon the Engineer-Member to appoint another arbitrator vide communication dated 27th August, 2003 within 30 days. Admittedly, the arbitrator was not appointed within 30 days. Mr.Sapra informs the Court that the arbitrator was appointed on 28th October, 2003, but intimation of that was not sent by Respondent. An intimation was sent to the petitioner on 11th November, 2003 by the arbitrator only. It is noted that the present petition had been filed on 10.11.2003 i.e. prior to dispatch of such intimation by arbitrator. Accordingly, as far as the petitioner is concerned, when the petition was filed there was no communication of the appointment of an arbitrator. Hence the Court was fully justified in appointing an arbitrator, following Datar Switchgear Ltd. Vs.Tata Finance Ltd. & Anr : (2000)8SCC151 .
3. Noting the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to entertain this review petition which does not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record on the date when the order was passed. This apart, the application for review is also barred by limitation. Hence it is dismissed.