Manmohan Sarin, J. (Oral) ( 1 ) THIS is an application moved by the respondent/objector for summoning the entire record pertaining to the admission and discharge of the sole arbitrator Mr. B. N. Waghray at Nizam s Orthopedic Centre, Hyderabad. Respondents have filed an objection to the award made and published by the sole arbitrator on 19. 1. 1990. Learned counsel for the respondent/objector submitted that on the date of making of the award, the learned arbitrator was hospitalized and this has been intimated to the respondents by their counsel Mr. Gopal Reddy. Many opportunities were given to the petitioner to file reply to this application, but reply has not been forthcoming. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she would argue the matter without the reply to this application. ( 2 ) THE question to be considered is whether the court should embark on a fishing enquiry on the mere fact that on the date of making and publishing of the award, the arbitrator was hospitalised. ( 3 ) MR. Budhiraja argues that the arbitrator was admitted in the Nursing Home and was not in a fit condition of health to consider the material on record. In the counter affidavit filed by way of evidence the respondent had stated as under:- "that the learned Arbitrator was not himself in a fit condition and was admitted in Nizam s Orthopedic Center, Hyderabad on and prior to the date of publishing the award. A photocopy of the letter dated 2. 5. 1991 received from Shri A. Gopal Reddy, Adv. mentioning the fact to this effect is annexed herewith and marked as `a . The learned Arbitrator thus failed to adhere to well settled principles of natural justice in adjudicating the dispute. The impugned award has been improperly procured. " THE response of the petitioner to this is as under: "that the contents of para 26 are wrong and denied. It is denied that the arbitrator was not medically fit when the said Award was published. Though he was admitted in the Nursing Home due to an infection in the chest but as the date of the Award was pre-fixed he published the Award on the said date as he was in sound disposing mind during that period. It is denied that the arbitrator was not medically fit when the said Award was published. Though he was admitted in the Nursing Home due to an infection in the chest but as the date of the Award was pre-fixed he published the Award on the said date as he was in sound disposing mind during that period. "learned counsel for the respondent applicant very fairly submits that the respondent is not aware of the ailment for the treatment of which the arbitrator got admitted. It is for this reason that the application had been moved for summoning the records. In my view in a matter like this, the onus rests heavily on the respondent/objector to at least prima facie show that the arbitrator was suffering from such disability, which would render him unfit to make an award. No such details have been forthcoming. The forum of these proceedings, which are in the nature of objections to the award cannot be permitted to be converted into an enquiry to first find out the ailment from which the arbitrator was suffering and then based on that to make submissions as to whether the same resulted in his being in an unfit state of mind to make the award. ( 4 ) LOOKING at the proceedings, I find that the sole arbitrator had entered upon reference of the disputes on 25. 2. 1989 and thereafter the pleadings were got completed in June 1989. Oral and documentary evidence was led before him. Cross-examination was done and arguments were held on 6th and 7th November, 1989. The parties thereafter even agreed to extend the time for making and publishing of the award. From the foregoing, it would be seen that till November, 1989, the respondents had no grievance or complaint with regard to the state of health or the soundness of the mental state of the arbitrator. It is only between December 1989 and January 1990, that the respondent claims that arbitrator came to be an unfit state of mind and incapable of making the award. ( 5 ) THE onus lay heavily on the respondent, who have failed even to aver the basic facts or lay the foundation for the same. It is only between December 1989 and January 1990, that the respondent claims that arbitrator came to be an unfit state of mind and incapable of making the award. ( 5 ) THE onus lay heavily on the respondent, who have failed even to aver the basic facts or lay the foundation for the same. I find no merit in this application especially in view of the fact that respondent s counter affidavit by way of evidence, wherein it is stated that the arbitrator was admitted in the hospital on account of chest infection, but was able to pronounce the award. ( 6 ) THE application has no merit and the same is dismissed.