HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 58/2002 Niranjan Lal Joshi son of Shri Babu Ram Joshi, Resident of D-18, Kalvad Scheme, Gopalbari, Jaipur ----Applicnat-Petitioner Versus Pramod Kumar son of Shri Roop Narain, Partner of Firm Unnat Beej Bhandar, Station Road, Alwar and Anr. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. Bhavya Kala, Mr. Jatin Agarwal – Amicus Curiae For Respondent(s) : None Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 07/03/2025 1. No one has put in appearance on behalf of either of the parties, however, in the light of previous order dated 21.02.2025 passed by this Court, valuable assistance of Mr. Anuroop Singhi along with Mr. Bhavya Kala & Mr. Jatin Agarwal as Amicus Curiae, has been received to this Court in respect of issue of revival of the arbitration application, which as already been finally disposed of by this Court, yet the Registry has revived the original arbitration application on Board by its own, merely on receipt of a letter from the Arbitrator. More so, despite of the fact that none of the parties either applicant or non-applicant has moved any application for revival of the arbitration application or for seeking appointment of substituted arbitrator. 2. It is noteworthy that the present Arbitration Application No.58/2002 had already been disposed of by this Court vide order (2 of 3) [ARBAP-58/2002] dated 25.05.2006, by appointing Hon'ble Justice Mr. Mohd. Yamin (Retd.) as sole Arbitrator and thereafter on his recusal, but on the request of both parties, a substituted Arbitrator, namely, Hon'ble Justice Mr. P.S. Asopa (Retd.) was appointed vide order dated 07.08.2015. Now, Registry has revived the decided arbitration application and has listed the same on Board, on receipt of letter dated 09.01.2025 from the substituted Arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Asopa (Retd.), expressing his inability to continue/ conclude the Arbitration proceedings due to his health reasons. 3. At the cost of repetition, it is hereby noted that none of the parties either applicant or non-applicants has put in appearance nor has moved any application seeking appointment of a substituted Arbitrator. 4. Having legal assistance by the learned Advocates as Amicus Curiae, this Court is of opinion that it is no more res integra that on recusal of the arbitrator to act or continue as arbitrator, the mandate of arbitrator stands terminated and a substituted arbitrator can be appointed, but for appointment of substituted arbitrator, in the opinion of this Court, an independent and separate application is required to be moved by either of the parties under Section 14/15 read with Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 5. 5. This Court is of the opinion that after appointment of arbitrator and disposing of the arbitration application, the High Court becomes functus officio, and unless and until an appropriate application seeking appointment of a substituted arbitrator to continue the arbitration proceedings is not moved by either of the parties, the Registry should not revive the original arbitration application by its own, merely on receipt of letter from the appointed arbitrator. (3 of 3) [ARBAP-58/2002] For appointment of a substituted arbitrator, procedure envisaged under Section 14 & 15 of the A&C Act, 1996 has to be followed by the parties and for that, an independent and separate application is maintainable. 6. This Court has come across with several arbitration applications, which have been disposed of, yet revived by the Registry by its own, merely on receipt of a letter from the appointed Arbitrator, expressing his inability to continue or conclude the arbitration proceedings for one or other reason. 7. In that view of the matter, Registry is directed to place the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to solicit the appropriate directions. 8. Since the present arbitration application has already been disposed of, same be consigned to record. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /1