SURAJ PRASAD Vs. MUNNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected revisions against a common, judgment of the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge of Budaun disposing of two appeals filed before him under Sec. 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the opposite party Munna Lal brought two suits against the applicant Suraj Prasad. In one of these he prayed for the closure of certain spouts and in the other for the closure of a door. The parties then agreed to refer the matter to the arbitration of one Pt. Sriniwas, but Pt. Sriniwas returned the papers and he did not enter into the arbitration. Subsequently, on the 4th Aug. 1951, the parties referred their disputes in the two suits to Sri Raghunandan Sarup. The court appointed Sri Raghunandan Sarup as arbitrator and directed him to make his awards by the 10th Sept. 1951. Sometimes the arbitrator and sometimes the parties got extensions of time from the court for making the awards, and ultimately on the 14th March 1952 the trial court passed an order directing the arbitrator to file his awards within two days. The two days were to expire on the 16th of March which was a Sunday and the awards were filed in court on the next reopening day, namely, the 17th of March 1952. Objections were filed to these awards and one of the grounds taken was that the awards had been made beyond the time, allowed by the court and were thus liable to be set-aside. On the 20th of May 1952, Munna Lal opposite party filed applications under Sec. 28 of the Arbitration Act for extension of time for making the awards till the date that they were filed in court. The learned Munsif appears to have got sick of granting these applications for extension of time, and he dismissed even this application which, on the face of it, appeared to be the application which deserved a more favourable consideration. The learned Munsif then considered the objections to the awards and he come to the conclusion that the awards should be set aside as they were made after the time allowed by the court.

(3.) The opposite party Munna Lal then filed two appeals against the orders setting aside the awards. The lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the learned Munsif did not exercise his discretion properly and he should have granted the applications made for extension of time on the 20th May 1952. A reading of the judgment shows that the lower appellate court itself extended the time and, as the only reason for setting aside the awards was that they were filed beyond time, it allowed the appeals and directed that the awards be made rules of court and decrees be passed in terms of the awards. The defendant applicant Suraj Prasad has filed these Two revisions, and the learned Counsel appearing for him has urged that the order of the lower Appellate court is without jurisdiction as that court had no right to extend the time fixed by the trial court for making the; awards.