ORDER
S.C. Mohapatra, J.
1. Defendant is the petitioner against the order of the trial Court refusing to exercise power under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short ‘the Act’) to direct the Arbitrator to frame issues.
2. In Money Suit No. 8 of 1984 filed by the plaintiff-opposite party alleging breach of contract embodied in a written agreement which also contained a clause for arbitration, the defendant-petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Act for stay of the suit. Although the application was not pressed, on the application of both parties under Section 21 of the Act for referring the matter to an Arbitrator. Shri Chintamani Mohapatra, retired District Judge, was appointed as the Arbitrator.
3. In the application, it was stated that the assertions in the plaint are the subject-matter of dispute. On receipt of notice, the opposite party filed a statement of claim. The petitioner objected to the claim in the counter filed by it. In course of proceeding before the Arbitrator, the petitioner filed an application for settling issues to be considered and decided. The Arbitrator rejected the application on the finding that there is no scope for the same. Petitioner approached the Court to direct the Arbitrator to settle issues, which having been rejected this revision has been filed.
4. Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the Arbitrator fromulated the points on which he is to consider the disputes between the parties, he declined to settle the issues and accordingly the trial Court ought to have directed the Arbitator for settling the same. Mr. B. Ray, the learned counsel for the opposite party, submitted that once the Arbitrator kept in mind and also noted the points of difference in the order sheet, the technicalities of settling the issues as required under Order 14, Rule 1, C.P.C would not arise.
5. The Arbitrator is a Judge of the choice of the parties not being bound by the technicalities and he is to follow the principle of natural justice and those procedures which
are provided under the statute. Once the Arbitrator expressed that the disputes would be on the points indicated in the order, there is no doubt that having the rich experience of a judge in the past he would apply his mind to the questions. Accordingly, the technicalities of Order 14, Rule 1, C.P.C. for settling the issues are not required to be adhered to.
6. As I find, the application by both the parties is not in terms of the Form (J) 45. The reference is also not in Form (J) 47. In case the application would have been in the form, the matters of difference between the parties would have been indicated therein and in case the Form (J) 47 would have been properly filled in the matters of difference would have been indicated therein. There would have been no scope for the unnecessary legal exercise as in this case. It would be profitable in future in case the procedure laid down in the statute is adhered to. Formality is to be remembered to be the hallmark of authenticity. In case the petitioner would have approached at the stage of appointment, I would have no hesitation to direct the trial Court to specify the matters of difference while referring the dispute.
7. In the result, the civil revision is dismissed, but without any costs.