RAMASWAMI SERVAI Vs. MUTHIRALAYEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed against file order of the District Munsif, Ramanathapuram, overruling the preliminary objection raised by the present petitioner that the respondents could not be heard inasmuch as they had not filed an application to set aside the award within thirty days of the receipt of the order or notice by them. The petitioner filed on 17th November 1952 the award dated 10th July 1952 into court with a request that a decree might be passed in terms of the award. Notice of this was served on the respondents on 28th November 1952. Within thirty days of the receipt of notice, that is, on 5th December 1952, the respondents filed a counter attacking the genuineness and validity of the award. In that counter it was prayed that the court might be pleased to pass an order dismissing the petition. The basis of the preliminary objection already referred to above was that as there was no application with a prayer to set aside the award within thirty days as required by Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and Article 158 of the Limitation Act, the objections of the respondents could not be entertained.

(2.) THE view of the trial court is contested in this revision petition. It is urged that the counter affidavit filed by the respondents does not amount to an application envisaged in Section 17 of the Arbitration Act in that it is not styled as an application and does not bear any court fee stamp. I find it difficult to accede to this contention. THE word "application" has not been denned either in Section 17 or anywhere in the Arbitration Act or in the Limitation Act. That being the case can it be postulated that although the form of application to be presented as required under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act is not prescribed, the court should insist on a particular form of application to be presented with court fee stamp affixed thereon.