RAM BHAROSEY Vs. PEAREY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision and arises in the following circumstances. The opposite parties Pearey Lal and another filed a suit for the ejectment of the defendant applicant from a shop.

(2.) THE trial court decreed the suit. THE applicant filed an appeal in the lower appellate court. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties agreed to refer the matter in dispute to arbitration through the agency of the Court. THE Court referred the dispute to an arbitrator on 10th April 1951. THE arbitrator made an award and filed it in court on the 30th April 1951. THE Court ordered the parties to file objections, if any, by the 30th May, 1951. On the 30th May, 1951 no objections were filed as no notice was actually issued to the parties. When the Court noted this fact, it adjourned the case and directed that notice-on respondent be issued by means of the service of a card, and as appears from the order-sheet, the signature of the counsel for the defendant-applicant was obtained there and then, on the margin of the ordersheet, thereby showing that the counsel for the applicant was informed of the order of the Court. 23rd July was fixed for dealing with the objections. No objections were filed on the 23rd July and the case was adjourned to 31st July, on which date the Court passed a decree in terms of the award. Against this order the applicant has come up to this Court in revision and two contentions have been raised on his behalf, " (1) that the award was invalid because the arbitrator did not give any notice to the parties as required by clause (1) of section 14 of the Arbitration Act, and (2) that the proceedings in the court below were illegal and irregular, inasmuch as the Court did not serve notice on the parties. It is contended that service of notice on the counsel of the applicant did not meet the requirement of Clause (2) of Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act.

(3.) ON behalf of the opposite parties it was urged that Clause (1) of Section 14 does not apply to an arbitration made through the agency of the Court. This contention does not appear to be correct as Section 25 of the Act lays down that the provisions of the other Chapters shall (including Chapter II , in which Section 14 appears) so far as they can be made applicable, be applied to arbitrations in suits. I, therefore, think that Clause (1) of Section 14 applies even to arbitrations in pending suits. But this does not dispose of the matter.