L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is filed against the order and decree in O. P. No. 107 of 1991 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirupathi. ( 2 ) THE petitioners 1 and 2 herein are the respondents 1 and 2 in the O. P. The 1st respondent in this revision filed O. P. No. 107 of 1991 under Section 14 of the Arbitration act, 1940 for making the Award passed by the 2nd respondent herein, (the arbitrator), the rule of the Court. ( 3 ) THE O. P. was filed on 21-10-1991 against the Superintending Engineer, IPP-II, cuddapah and the Arbitrator. Subsequently, I. A. No. 202 of 1994 was filed for impleading the petitioners herein and the same was ordered on 4-4-1995. In the o. P. it was contended that the 2nd respondent herein was appointed as an arbitrator by the Court in O. P. No. 25 of 1986 who took up the proceedings and passed award dt. 16-9-1991 for an amount of rs. 1,95,291 /- and that the decree be passed for making the award the rule of the Court. ( 4 ) THE petitioners filed a counter taking certain objections. It was pleaded that the very appointment of arbitrator was illegal; and that inasmuch as the petitioners herein were added as respondents only through the order dt. 4-4-1995, the very OP. is barred by limitation as against them, since it should be construed that the O. P. is deemed to have been filed against the contesting respondents only on the date on which they were ordered to be impleaded or at any rate on the date on which they were ordered to be impleaded or at any rate on the date on which the IA for impleading them is allowed. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed necessary points for consideration and answered them. ( 6 ) THOUGH notice was served in C. R. P. , the respondent No. 1 did not choose to appear either in person or through a counsel. ( 7 ) SRI G. V. Venkateshwar Rao, learned asst. Government Pleader for the petitioners submits that the order and decree of the trial court suffer from material irregularity and non-compliance with the mandatory provisions and states that the same deserves to be set aside. ( 7 ) SRI G. V. Venkateshwar Rao, learned asst. Government Pleader for the petitioners submits that the order and decree of the trial court suffer from material irregularity and non-compliance with the mandatory provisions and states that the same deserves to be set aside. ( 8 ) IT is evident from the order of the court that no oral evidence was adduced by any party. Only Exs. A-1 to A-3 are marked. The trial Court decreed the O. P. by simply brushing aside the contention raised by the respondents. ( 9 ) THE O. P. has been filed under section 14 of the Arbitration Act 1940. It is mandatory for the trial Court to ensure that the arbitrator files award before it. On the award being filed before it, it shall call upon the parties to put forward the claims. Before the trial Court, the Arbitrator remained ex parte. A xerox copy of the Award, said to have been passed by the arbitrator has been filed. Its veracity or genuineness was not at all considered. It is also not known as to how the trial Court accepted the xerox copy of the award and that too, from a source other than the Arbitrator himself. This constitutes a material irregularity. ( 10 ) IT is also to be seen that the petitioners herein have raised a very important objection as to the limitation. Admittedly, the O. P. was filed in the year 1991 only against the Arbitrator and another person who is not concerned with the matter. It was only after four years the petitioners herein have been impleaded. The trial Court dealt with the question of limitation of O. P. and brushed aside with the following observation:"another contention of the respondents is that the respondents 1 and 2 added only on 4-4-1995 as per orders in l. A. No. 202 of 1994 and hence the claim against the each respondent is time barred. It (is also) cannot be accepted at this stage because the respondents 1 and 2 and the petitioners are the parties before the arbitrator at the time of passing the award dt. 16-9-1991. For my above discussion, the point No. 1 has to be answered in favour of the petitioner. " ( 11 ) THE foregoing discussion indicates that the trial Court did not address itself to the question involved in the proper perspective. 16-9-1991. For my above discussion, the point No. 1 has to be answered in favour of the petitioner. " ( 11 ) THE foregoing discussion indicates that the trial Court did not address itself to the question involved in the proper perspective. The proceedings under arbitration Act either for making the Award a rule of the Court or to set aside the Award are to be treated on par with civil suits. Any person who files suit or original petition is expected to adduce oral evidence and prove the contents of the O. P. The respondent no. 1 did not choose to adduce any evidence in support of the original petition. The trial court did not ensure that the Arbitrator files the Award in accordance with the provisions of the Act. On the other hand, it has chosen to accept the xerox copy of the award that too from a source other than the arbitrator. The question of limitation, which was raised by the petitioners was dealt with in a very casual manner with a cryptic observation. The rights of the parties cannot be adjudicated in such a casual manner. The order and decree of the trial Court cannot be sustained either on facts or in law and the same is set aside. The C. R. P. is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.