DORI LAL Vs. LAL SHEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a certain sum of money. The defendant denied his liability to pay the amount. The matter was referred to arbitration and the father of lawyer appearing for the plaintiff was appointed arbitrator. The arbitrator on the 16th of January, 1948, fixed the 22nd of January, 1948, for hearing and he gave notice of the date to counsel for the parties on the 18th of January, 1948. On the 22nd of January, 1948, the defendant did not appear and the plaintiff produced his evidence and on the 23rd of January, 1948, the arbitrator gave his award. The award was filed in the court of the learned Munsif to be made a rule of the court. The defendant objected to the award being made a rule of the court on the ground that he had no information of the date fixed. The learned Munsif held that the defendant had no notice of the date fixed and the arbitrator was, therefore, guilty of legal misconduct and he set aside the award. The plaintiff appealed and the lower appellate court has held that notice to the counsel on the 16th of January, 1948, was notice to the defendant and it cannot, therefore, be said that the defendant, who was represented and whose pleader was informed, had no notice of the date. As regards the defendant's contention that the registered post-card sent by defendant's pleader to the defendant on the 16th of January did not reach him in time, the learned Judge was not satisfied that this was true. There was an endorsement on the post-card on the 21st of January, 1948, that the defendant was not found in the village. The next endorsement is of the 24th of January, 1948, that the defendant refused to accept the post-card as the date had already passed; and then there is a note of the 26th of january, 1948, that the post-card was refused. The information of the date having been conveyed by the pleader to the defendant in a postcard the learned Judge suspected that the defendant deliberately evaded taking delivery of the post-card on the 21st January otherwise there was no reason why the post-card which had reached the village on the 21st January should not have been offered to him for delivery till the 24th January. It is not denied that the arbitrator had given due notice of the date to the counsel for the parties. It was, therefore, open to the arbitrator to proceed ex parte if a party did not appear and if the arbitrator proceeded ex parte it could not be said that he was guilty of legal misconduct. This was the view taken by the learned District Judge who allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the lower court and passed a decree in terms of the award.

(3.) THE revision has no force and is dismissed with costs.