RAJ KUMAR DEY Vs. TARAPADA DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta dated 19th of June, 1986 in Civil Order No. 2278 of 1985 (reported in AIR 1987 Cal 107). On or about 11th of June, 1977 an unregistered deed of agreement between the four brothers being the appellants Nos. 1 to 4 and their eldest brother. respondent No. 1 was entered into regarding partition of joint movable and immovable properties and the same were referred to three arbitrators, namely, three appellants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 herein. On or about 2nd of July, 1977 the same agreement was rewritten on a fresh stamp paper and the same was registered by which the abovenamed arbitrators were given the option to take assistance of one, two or more persons, The dispute related to certain properties among the brothers in Chinsurah the district of Hooghly in the State of West Bengal. The three arbitrators took the assistance of appellant No. 8 and he functioned and acted as one of the arbitrators.

(3.) THE High Court of Calcutta in Civil Rule No. 621 of 1980 on 6/03/1981 set aside the aforesaid order of the learned Sub Judge holding that during the subsistence of the interim injunction order on the arbitrators to maintain status quo the arbitrators could not take back the award for presenting the same for registration. THE High Court ordered that the arbitrators' application dated 14th of August, 1978 should be kept pending and be heard when the injunction order was vacated. On 20/12/1982 the learned Munsif, Arambagh dismissed Misc. Case No. 74 of 1977 and the interim injunction order ipso facto was, discharged. THE arbitrators, therefore, renewed their prayer before the learned Sub Judge to return the award. On 25th of February, 1983 the learned Sub Judge dismissed the arbitrators' application and did not direct return of the award holding that the limitation for the registration of the award had already expired. THE High Court in Civil Order No. 589 of 1983 on 19th of September, 1983 directed the learned Sub Judge to return back the award to the arbitrators holding that it was the Registrar and not the Sub Judge who could determine the question of limitation for the purpose of registration of the award. THE learned Sub Judge. Hooghly at Chinsurah on 23rd of November, 1983 ordered returning back of the award to the arbitrators. On 24th of November, 1983 the arbitrators got back the award from the court. On 25/11/1983 i.e., the very next day the arbitrators presented the award before the Sub-Registrar, Arambagh for registration. THE Sub-Registrar, Arambagh on 25th of November, 1983 registered the award. THE High Court in Civil Order No. 9696 (W) of 1984 on 24th of July, 1984 had sent back the award to the Sub-Registrar to reconsider the question of limitation and found that the award was presented within time as the period during which the judicial proceedings were pending, namely, 28th of January, 1978 to 24th of November, 1983 should be excluded in view of the principle laid down under S. 15 of the Limitation Act. On 19/06/1986 by the judgment and order impugned the High Court quashed the registration under Art. 227 of the Constitution holding that the award had been presented for registration beyond time. It is the validity and propriety of that order which is under challenge in this appeal.