JUDGMENT P. K. Deb, J 1. Two petitions have been filed by the Opposite Party M/s. Om Metal & Mineral Pvt. Ltd. in both the civil revision petition Nos. 509 of 1995(R) and 510 of 1995(R) for recalling the order dated 11-3-97 passed by this court. Both the petitions have been filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both the revision petitions were filed on 21-12-1995 challenging the order of appointment of Arbitrator by the Subordinate Judge, Palamau, vide its order dated 4-9-1995. By that order, Mr. Justice. O. P. Mehrotra (Retd.) of Allahabad High Court was appointed as an Arbitrator. The grievance was that such appointment was made ignoring the panels of names of the Arbitrators given by the parties. While the order was being passed, an impression was given to this court by the counsel of the parties that only appointment was made and arbitration had not been started and Mr. Justice (Retd.) Mehrotra had not entered into the reference or if had entered was at the preliminary stage only. But from the petitions filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it could be found that there was suppressions from the side of both the parties. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Markanda, learned Advocate for M/s. Om Metal & Mineral Pvt. Ltd. that the counsel who had appeared for his client at the time of hearing of the revision petition, was not properly briefed about the present situation prevailing before the Arbitrator. When the order was passed, arbitration proceeding was going on in full swing. The grievance of the Government Advocate for the State of Bihar was that it would be inconvenient for the State to go to Lucknow for attending in the arbitration proceeding. Such difficulty was, definitely, considered to be just and proper and as such, by order dated 11-3-1997, the name of the Arbitrator was changed and Mr. Justice (Retd.) S. K. Choudhuri, a retired judge of this court, who has his residence at Ranchi, was appointed in place of Mr. Justice (Retd.) O. P. Mehrotra. 3. Such difficulty was, definitely, considered to be just and proper and as such, by order dated 11-3-1997, the name of the Arbitrator was changed and Mr. Justice (Retd.) S. K. Choudhuri, a retired judge of this court, who has his residence at Ranchi, was appointed in place of Mr. Justice (Retd.) O. P. Mehrotra. 3. It appears from the various documents filed by the learned counsel for M/ s. Om Metal & Mineral Pvt. Ltd. that on one hand the State of Bihar had filed these revision petitions, but on the other hand, they had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and filed their statements etc. and considering their difficulties after two or three preliminary sittings of the arbitration proceedings, Mr. Justice (Retd.) Mehrotra had fixed the meeting at Patna and by consent of the parties, some of the meetings were done at Delhi. Thus, all these facts were totally suppressed while placing the revision petitions before this court. Practically from the last order it appears that the arbitration proceedings before the Arbitrator Mr. Justice (Retd.) O. P. Mehrotra has come to a conclusion and only one or two sittings more are necessary for the purpose of passing the arbitration Award. In that view of the matter, changing of Arbitrator is, definitely, unwarranted. 4. Mr. P. D. Agarwal, G.P. II for and on behalf of the State of Bihar, who had not appeared previously while pressing the revision petitions, has submitted that due to confusion or non-feeding of the learned counsel for the State with the current facts proper submissions were not made before this court, but still he submits that in respect of one agreement, only the arbitration proceeding is at the fag end and regarding the other agreement, the matter has been stayed by the Arbitrator till the finalisation of the proceedings in respect of first agreement, but it also admitted by him in the same breath that both the agreement are in the same nature and the claims and counter claims are also similar to one another and practically, decision in respect of first agreement is totally dependent on the other agreement. 5. Regarding maintainability of Section 151 C.P.C. petition, various judgments of this court and that of the other High Courts have been cited by Mr. 5. Regarding maintainability of Section 151 C.P.C. petition, various judgments of this court and that of the other High Courts have been cited by Mr. Markanda, appearing for and on behalf of the M/s Om Metal & Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Practically, inherent jurisdiction of Civil Court cannot be defined within the four corners. It has got its vast amplitude in the nature and circumstances of the case. It is the that an order passed in the civil revision is an appellable order but if the order has been passed on misconception or mis-statement being made before the court then the order can be recalled under section 151 C.P.C., if the court find that such order ought not to have passed if the court was posted with proper facts, circumstances and legal position. 6. Generally, in the appointment of Arbitrator, the courts are slow in interference but when difficulties were being placed before this court and when no objections were raised from the other side then this court had passed the order without knowing the fact that the arbitration proceedings was going on in full swing and was at the fag end before the Arbitrator. 7. Hence, I find it is a proper case where Section 151 C.P.C. should be invoked and the order dated 11-3-1997 should be recalled, which I do accordingly. The order dated 11-3-1997 is hereby recalled and the revision petitions (C.R. No. 509 and 510 of 1995(R)) are dismissed having no force. Revision petition dismissed.