- (1.)HEARD Sri Udaya holla, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jayakumar S. Patil for the respondent.
(2.)THE brief facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement of construction of indoor stadium for the petitioner-University. The respondent did construct the indoor sta-dium after the persuasive efforts but the dispute aro. se between the parties that the petitioner had not settled the payments of the respondent and however, the petitioner contended that the workmanship was defective and required rectification as a result of which the petitioner had sustained heavy loss towards effecting repairs and claimed that the respondent would have to pay a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. In view of this, the respondent wrote a letter to the petitioner to refer the questions to the superintending Engineer-for his report. Therefore, the Registrar of the petitioner-University by his letter No. GUG/engg/dm/98-99/ 9182, dated 25/28-11-1998 requested the superintending Engineer to furnish his report in connection with the construction of the in -. door stadium and also the payment to be made by either of the parties along with the copy of the letter as per Clause 30 of the agreement. The Superintending Engineer held meetings "of both the parties and by letter dated 30th july, 1999, informed that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 27,69,900/- and the counter-claim of the University was rejected. The respondent herein filed Ex. P. No. 254 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Gulbarga for recovering the amount in a sum of Rs. 27,69,900/- together with interest at 18% per annum from 31. 7. 1999. The executing Court issued warrant and in execution of that warrant, the car of the Vice-Chancellor of Gulbarga University was attached. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 47 of the Civil procedure Code. The respondent filed his objection and the said application was rejected after hearing both parties. As against that order dated 19. 10. 2000 the petitioner preferred this revision petitfon under Section 115 of the civil Procedure Code.
(3.)THE learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Clause 30 of the agreement is not an arbitration clause and the order passed by the Superintending Engineer, PWD, Gulbarga is not an award and therefore, the executing Court has committed an error in holding that the said report is arbitration award and executing the award as against the petitioner. Clause 30 is incorpo rated to secure expert opinion which cannot be construed as a clause to appoint an arbitrator. Therefore, he submitted that the order passed by the Court below calls for interference.