S.K. Mitter, J.
1. This appeal is by special leave granted by this Court from an appellate judgment and order of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir staying a suit filed by the Lakshmi Ice Factory for a declaration that the Union of India was not entitled to recover Rs. 35,210-21 from the plaintiff or its partners and for a decree for Rs. 10.000/-against the Union of India for balance of price of ice supplied by the plaintiff etc.
2. The dispute between the parties arose out of a contract for supply of ice by the appellant to the Union of India and the latter made a claim against the plaintiff for failure to supply the ice in terms of the contract and damages suffered as a result thereof. There was a reference to arbitration Under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in terms of an arbitration clause contained in the contract. The award which followed was challenged by the appellant and was set aside by a single Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. The appellant then instituted the suit referred to above. A single Judge of the High Court rejected an application Under Section 34 of the Act preferred by the respondent but this order was set aside by the appellate Bench-
3. It appears that no proper steps were taken in the prosecution of appeal to this Court by special leave and on his own application one Mr. Bansi Lal Sharma was allowed to be impleaded as appellant No. 2 At the hearing of the appeal on August 25, 1969 the claim of the Union of India for Rs. 35,210-21 as also that of the appellant for Rs. 10,000/-were by agreement of parties referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. Bishan Narain, an advocate of this Court. After hearing the parties at some length, the arbitrator made his award whereby he found that the defendant was not liable for any amount exceeding Rs. 17,110-32 and the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 970/-as refund to the security deposit and Rs. 2,256-79 as price of ice supplied by Lakshmi Ice Factory during the month of June, 1958 i.e. a total of Rs. 3,226-79.
4. It appears that the partner of the appellant Mr. Manohar Lal who had been taking all steps in the appeal before the impleading of Mr. Bansilal died during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. But the attention of the learned arbitrator was not drawn to it and the parties proceeded as if nothing had happened. On behalf of Bansilal it is now contended before us that the arbitration proceedings becomes incompetent in the absence of the heirs and legal representatives of Manoharlal on the record. We do not think that this contention can be accepted in view of the provisions of order 30 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure. The appeal is therefore disposed of in terms of the award. The respondent is also entitled to the cost of the appeal.