GANGA PRASAD Vs. KISHORI LAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision filed by the defendant arises out of the following circumstances. On 8th Oct., 1955, Kishori Lal, plaintiff, and Ganga Prasad defendant, the present petitioner, entered into an agreement to refer their dispute relating to their partnership in the plying of a truck, to a board of five Arbitrators who have been impleaded as opposite parties in this petition. The Arbitrators entered upon the reference and made and signed the award on 9th Dec., 1955 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,300 to the plaintiff. On 3rd Jan., 1956 the plaintiff-opposite party filed an application purporting to be under Secs. 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for filing the award as well as making it a rule of the Court. This application was registered as a plaint and summonses were issued to the defendant. The first date fixed in the case was 21st March. On that date the award and other papers were filed by the Arbitrators. The present petitioner who was defendant No. 1 took time for filing a written statement and one month's time was allowed. It may be stated that neither there is any order of the court giving notice of the filing of the award nor it appears from the record that any notice in that behalf was actually issued. Time prayed for by defendant No. 1 was allowed and the case was fixed for 5th Oct., 1956 for fixing a date for issues. On 21st April, 1956 the defendant was given another 15 days' time and it was on 7th May, 1956 that the defendant filed a written statement challenging the validity of the arbitration agreement as well as praying for setting aside the award on the grounds given in the written statement. After hearing the objections filed by the defendant the trial court upheld the award and dismissed the objections. The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendant and the Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad, dismissed the appeal as well. It is against these orders that the present revision has been filed.

(2.) Three points have been submitted in this revision. The first is that Sec. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act makes a mandatory provision for issue of a notice of the filing of the award and as no such notice was issued the award could not be made a rule of the Court and the courts below have erred in doing so. The second contention of the learned counsel is that on 30th Nov., 1955 the defendant was given time for production of his evidence, but during this time the defendant learnt of the partiality of the Arbitrators and consequently he made an application before the Arbitrators on 8th Dec., 1955 that they may not proceed with the reference. This application was ordered to be put up on 9th Dec., 1955, but before passing any orders on this application the Arbitrators gave their award on that very date, that is 9th Dec., 1955. The third contention is that the defendant could not produce his evidence and the award which has been given merely on the plaintiff's statement was given on insufficient evidence and should be set aside.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party is that there may be a statutory provision in Sec. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act for the issuing of a notice, but in a case where the defendant knew of the filing of the award, also took time to file a written statement and then actually filed a written statement challenging the award on a number of grounds he could not take shelter behind the fact that no notice was actually issued. His submission is that the purpose of issuing a notice of the filing of the award is that the defendant may be aware of the filing of the award and as the defendant was already aware of the filing of the award and took full opportunity in challenging the award he cannot be allowed to take this plea in the court of revision. It has further been submitted that no prejudice was caused to the defendant by non-issue of a notice and if the defendant did not produce any evidence before the Arbitrators it was all due to his own act and he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own doings in a revisional court. The case is said to have been decided on evidence of the parties because both the parties are said to have been examined by the Arbitrator on 20th Nov., 1955 and the award is a legal document and has rightly been made a rule of the Court.