[2025:RJ-JP:19182] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4870/2017 Suresh Trilokani S/o Shri Nandiram, R/o 6-B, Chandra Nagar, Beawar Road, Ajmer Raj. ----Appellant Versus 1. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Regd. Office 123, Annagappa Nekam Stree, Chennai, Regional Office 4, Gems Enclave, Kelegiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan Through Authorized Officer 2. Laxman Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh, R/o 134, Dhola Data, Ratadiya, Tehsil Raipur, Distt. Pali Rajasthan 3. Shri S.c. Mittal Retired Distt. Judge And Sole Arbitrator, R/o 152/61, Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. R. Vashishth with Mr. D. Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 07/05/2025 1. None present on behalf of the appellant. 2. In the present appeal, the only grievance raised by the appellant is that their application to provide the correct address of respondent No.2-Laxman Singh has been wrongly rejected by the learned Court below under the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant was guaranter of the respondent no.2 Laxman Singh (Borrower), and the appellant has challenged the award dated 09.03.2025 while invoking section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1996"). [2025:RJ-JP:19182] (2 of 3) [CMA-4870/2017] That in the objection petition, appellant has arrayed Laxman Singh as respondent, therefore, it is the duty of the appellant to effect service upon the respondent-Laxman Singh. Thus the impugned order is perfectly just and proper. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned order. It is reflected that Laxman Singh took a loan of Rs.6,22,000/- and, since he defaulted in the payment of EMIs, the finance company initiated recovery proceedings by way of arbitration. 5. From the record, it is revealed that the Sole Arbitrator, Mr. S. C. Mittal, has also passed an award dated 09.03.2015. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the appellant herein has filed objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In that objection petition, the appellant has filed an application with a prayer that since the notice of respondent No.2 i.e. Laxman Singh, was not served for want of correct and complete address, therefore, the respondent No.1- Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. may be directed to provide the correct address of respondent No.2-Laxman Singh. 6. That the appellant has assailed the award dated 09.03.2025 by filing objection petition while impleading Laxman Singh as a respondent, therefore, the appellant is duty bound to take steps to serve the notices upon the respondent Laxman Singh and he cannot be allowed to prolong the case by filing such application. [2025:RJ-JP:19182] (3 of 3) [CMA-4870/2017] 7. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the prayer made by the appellant is wholly unreasonable. Further there is no arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned order, therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. 9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Seema/52