Jagat Narayan, C.J.
1. This is a plaintiff' revision application against an order of the Civil Judge, Jodhpur holding that the arbitrator named in the arbitration agreement should again decide the dispute between the parties.
2. The plaintiff is a P.W.D. contractor. He brought the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 3,241/- against the State. Under Clause 23 of the contract all disputes between the parties were to De referred to the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. Buildings & Roads. The State filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration of the Chief Engineer, who gave an award on 26-8 65. This award was set aside on appeal on 18-5-68 on the ground that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct. The appeal court did not pass a specific order superseding the reference as contemplated under Section 19 of the Arbitration Act. The plaintiff then applied to the learned Civil Judge to try his suit. The defendant took several adjournments for filing a written statement and then applied that the suit should not be tried by the court on account of the agreement of reference which had not been superseded. This contention was upheld by the trial court and the Chief Engineer has been directed to decide to dispute between the parties again.
3. The Chief Engineer was only found guilty of technical misconduct in as much as he did not give sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to produce his evidence. On behalf of the applicant it is contended that as the first award given by the Chief Engineer was set aside he had become incapable of acting as an arbitrator Reliance is placed on the following observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Juggilal. v. General Fibre Dealers : AIR1962SC1123 ;
What has happened in this case is that the previous tribunal made an award. That award has been set aside on account of misconduct. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that the previous tribunal has become incapable of acting as an arbitrator to decide this dispute because of its misconduct.
In the above case it was he'd that it was open to the Chamber to appoint another tribunal to decide the dispute. In the present case the Chief Engineer who gave the first award has since retired and the present Chief Engineer is therefore competent to decide the dispute between the parties.
4. The revision application is accordingly dismissed.