1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of its application seeking framing of issues on Application filed under Section 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, by the learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar, the Union of India and its functionaries have filed this Civil Revision seeking setting aside of the Additional District Judges order and framing of issues in the case. 2. Mr. S.A.Makroo, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners plea of Arbitrators misconduct in dealing with the technical issues involved in the case, when he did not possess requisite technical know-how, cannot be considered, unless issue to that effect had been raised by the Court and the order passed by the trial Court refusing framing of issues was, therefore, erroneous which needs to be set aside. 3. Respondents learned counsel, Mr. H.S.Oberoi, on the other hand submitted that having opted not to press for raising of issues in the case for three long years in seeking adjournments to argue the application on the existing material, the petitioners were estopped from seeking framing of issues at this belated stage of the proceedings when the framing of issues in the case was even otherwise unwarranted. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and gone through the learned Additional District Judge, Srinagars order. 5. A Court dealing with the Arbitration proceedings, is not, of necessity, required to frame issues and follow the procedure prescribed for dealing with the suits, in that, such a course would go against the very spirit and object sought to be achieved by the legislature in enacting the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997. It is not obligatory on the Court seized of the arbitration matters to frame issues in each and every case, unless, however it was absolute necessary for it so to do and in this view of the matter, the parties having opted to address the Court on pleas projected in their respective pleadings, I do not find any merit in the petitioners submission that the objections taken by them to the Award cannot be appropriately dealt with by the Court in the absence of issues in the case. 6. That apart, having opted to make submissions in the case in support of their respective objections on the available material, it is too late in the day for the petitioners to seek framing of issues. 6. That apart, having opted to make submissions in the case in support of their respective objections on the available material, it is too late in the day for the petitioners to seek framing of issues. The application moved by the petitioners, therefore, does not appear to be bonafide. 7. For all what has been said above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar warranting interference in Revision. 8. This Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar is, however, directed to take requisite steps to ensure that the proceedings pending before him are concluded, preferably, within a period of four months.