RADHA KISHEN Vs. MADHO KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise from the same order passed by the learned First Civil Judge of Meerut on 5th February 1948. The parties to the dispute are step brothers. There was a family dispute between them and they referred it for arbitration on 5th November 1945. The award was made by the arbitrator on 18th March 1947. On 23rd August 1947 Madho Kishan who was one of the parties to the agreement of reference made an application purporting to be under Section 17 read with Section 28, Arbitration Act, 1940, praying that a judgment might be pronounced according to the award and a decree framed in accordance with it. His step brother, Radha Kishan, raised several objections to this petition and himself made an application under Section 30, Arbitration Act praying that the award might be set aside. The learned Civil Judge repelled Radha Kishan's objections and pronounced a judgment in accordance with the award granting Madho Kishan a decree for Rs. 8,018-8-0. Radha Kishan's application under Section 30, Arbitration Act was rejected. THESE two appeals arise out of the order passed upon the aforesaid two applications.

(2.) THE first contention raised on behalf of the appellant Radha Kishan is that the award is invalid as it was made beyond the statutory period. Para. 3 of Schedule 1 to the Arbitration Act provides:

(3.) THE second ground taken is that the application made by Madho Kishan was barred by Article 178, Limitation Act. That is an Article which applies to applications made under Section 14 of the Act and not to those under Section 17. THE distinction between these two sections is that under Section 14 the arbitrator is called upon to file the award while under Section 17 the prayer is that the award may be made a rule of the Court and a judgment and decree may be pronounced accordingly. In the present case there is evidence to show that a copy of the award was given by the arbitrator to Madho Kishan. Indeed it was filed by Madho Kishan along with his application under Section 17 read with Section 28 of the Act. THE case reported in Jai Kishen v. Ramlal Gupta, A. I. R. 1944 Lah. 398 is on all fours with the present case. Article 178 is not applicable to the present case.