SAT PAL. J. ( ORAL ) ( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed by the petitoner under sectoin 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, ) 940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and it has been prayed that respondent No. 2 be directed to file the award and and thereafter a notice be issued to the parties as contemplated under the law. ( 2 ) ON receipt of the award a notice to the parties was issued. The petitioner filed his objections vide IA No. 374/87 under section 30 of the Act. The objections were controverted by the respondents and the following issues were framed:- 1) Whether the award is liable to be set aside?. 2) Whether the arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings? 3) Whether the arbitrator has left any matter undetermined as alleged? 4) Relief. ( 3 ) THE parties were allowed to lead evidence by way of affidavits. Affidavits and counter affidavits have been filed in support and in opposition to the petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learend counsel for the petitioner has drew my attention to para 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the arbitrator rightly over-ruled the order of his prodecessor who had earlier fixed the case for oral evidence. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that since the petitioner was not allowed to lead evidence, it clearly amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and as such the award is liable to be set aside. In suport of his contention he placed reliance on ajudgment of this Court in M/s. Teja Singh and Co. vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1977 Delhi 231. In this judgment it has been held that refusal to order the production of a document amounts to misconduct on the part of the arbitrator and by such refusal principles of natural justice are violated. ( 4 ) MR. Jagdev Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submitted that the award is not liable to be set aside even if there is an error apparent on the face of the record and in support of his contention he placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of S. Harcharan Singh VS. Union of India, JT 1990 (3) SC 692. Union of India, JT 1990 (3) SC 692. ( 5 ) I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the principles of natural justice require that the parties must be given an oportunity to lead the evidence. Since the petitioner was refused to lead evidence, the award is liable to be set aside. The ratio of the judgment in the case of Harcharan Singh (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the question of refusal by the Arbitrator to allow evidence to a party was not involved in that case. Accordingly, I set aside the award dated 14thjanuary, 1987. I further direct the respondents to appoint an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause within two months from today. With this order the petition stands disposed of. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.