PUTHIVAPURAVIL POCKER Vs. V KHALID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. S. No. 93 of 1968 is an appeal against the decision in O. P. No. 218 of 1965 and A. S No. 143 of 1968 is against the decision in O. P. No. 44 of 1965. Both the appeals are by the same parties.

(2.) O. P. No. 44 of 1965 was filed for an order directing the first respondent in that petition who was an arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 to file the award in Court, to eive notice to the parties regarding the filim Of the Award, hear the objections of the petitioners to the Award so as to make modifications to the award and to pass a decree on the basis of the Award. The first respondent was, at the relevant time, an advocate and he was appointed as an arbitrator to decide certain disputes concerning allotment of property to the parties to the dispute. He is seen to have made the award Exhibit B-l, which is seen dated 2nd March, 1965. Under Clause 3 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act. 1940 the arbitrator has to make his Award within four months after entering on the reference or after having been called upon to act by notice in writing from any party to the arbitration agreement or within such extended time as the Court may allow. The time Of four months was being extended from tune to time and such extended time was to expire on 2nd March, 1965. The Award was registered on 24-3-1965. O. P. No. 44 of 1965 was filed by the appellants in A. S. No. 143 of 1968 for directing the filing of the Award in Court and for passing a decree on the Award with certain modifications. The Award was actually filed in Court on 9th August, 1965. The second respondent appeared only on 11-10-1965 and he filed an obiection to the petition on 28-10-1965. He later filed a petition O. P. No. 218 of 1965 seeking to set aside the Award for certain reasons. The petitoners in O. P. No. 44 of 1965 are respondents 2 to 12 in the subsequent petition. theyobjected to the oetition on several grounds including the ground of limitation. While both the petitions were pending in the Court below that Court decided the case by the order impugned in these appeals holding that since the Award was not made within time and was not registered also within the time, namely, on or before 2nd march, 1965, it was not possible to act upon that Award. As a result, the Court held that the Award had to be set aside and it was so set aside. Naturally, therefore, O. P. No. 44 of 1965 had to be dismissed and O. P. No. 218 of 1965 had to be allowed. That decision is challenged in these appeals.

(3.) THE reasoning in the order of the Court below that the document could not have been executed on 2-3-1965 does not appear to us to be sound. Ext. B-l is seen dated 2nd March, 1965, The stamp papers on which the document is written are also seen purchased on 2-3-1965. There is no circumstance to indicate that nevertheless it should have been prepared only later. There is the initial presumption that, a document is executed on the day mentioned in the document as the date of execution. Prima facie the date shown in the document mav be accepted as the date of such execution and it is for the party who contends that the document was executed on a different date to show that it was so. We need refer onlv to the decision in Kepong Prospecting Ltd. v. Schmidt, 1968 (2) WLJR 55.