RAM AGAWRAL Vs. BRIJENDRA KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision, preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as CPC), is directed against the order dated 22-5-2001, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/fast track Court VI, Dehradun, in misc. Case No. 19 of 2000, whereby the objections moved by the respondents/judgment debtors under Section 47 read with section 151 of CPC were partly allowed by said Court.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case are that rameshwar Prasad Agarwal (party No. 1)predecessor-in-title of decree holder (presentrevisionist)entered into an agreement with sardar Mukund Singh (party No. 2) predecessor-in-title of the judgment-debtors (present respondents) on 11-7-1961, in respect of property known as Kandy Lodge estate situated at Dick Road, Mussoorie having area of 298 acres of land for the purposes of converting and raising an orchard on a commercial scale over said land and for said purpose possession of certain part of aforesaid Estate appears to have been transferred to the predecessors of judgment-debtors, for five years. Clause 19 of the agreement between the predecessors-in-title of the parties provides that any dispute or difference which may arise between the parties or their representatives with regard to the construction, interpretation, meaning, affect of the deed or any part thereof or respecting the as accounts, profits or losses of the business or the rights and liabilities of the parties under the deed of the separation of the business or any other matter whatsoever pertaining to the undertaking under reference shall be referred to two arbitrators appointed by the parties. It appears that some dispute arose between the concerned parties and Mr. O. P. Sapra, Advocate, was appointed arbitrator by the predecessor-in-title of the decree-holder (present revisionist) but predecessor-in-title of the judgment-debtors (present respondents) did not appoint any arbitrator, even after being served with the notices, as such, the sole arbitrator entered into arbitration and vide his award dated 19-5-1986 gave following di-rections in the concluding part of the award:-