also would have been applicable to the arbitrator. It is submitted that if in a similar circumstance, what a civil court would have done, arbitrator is supposed to do something much more than that, which is submitted is 'full opportunity.' The learned counsel submits that in this case, full opportunity was not given to the petitioner by the learned arbitrator. It is submitted that Mr Mathur's report, handwriting expert, was on record. Under Order 26 Rule 10 of the CPC, Mr Mathur's report would have been part and parcel of record and which ought to have been looked into by a civil Court even if the witness was not examined. It is submitted that Mr Mishra's report, handwriting expert, was also not taken into consideration although that was on record. It is submitted that by virtue of Order 26 Rule 10 of CPC, Mr Mishra's report would have been part and parcel of record and proceedings and would have been looked into by civil Court even if Mr Mishra was not examined. It is submitted that in Civil Court, if the party wants to dispute the Commissioner's report, then that party has to apply for cross-examination. However, in case of arbitration proceedings, it is not necessary, in view of the fact that Evidence Act does not apply to arbitration proceedings and thus, examination of Mr Mishra or Mr Mathur was not necessary.
