NAMDEO S O MAROTI GABHANE Vs. MONABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE decree passed by the Joint, Judge Akola on 20-12-1984 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 303/82, allowing the appeal and remanding the matter to the trial Court for decision according to law, has been challenged in this revision.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision may be briefly stated as follows: Monabai and Ramkrishna (the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2), instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 98/76 before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Washim for injunction restraining the defendant (present petitioner) from obstructing their possession over Survey Nos. 347/1 and 462. This suit came to be opposed by the defendant on various grounds with which we are not concerned at this stage. The trial went on. Two witnesses of the plaintiffs were examined on 1-4-1981 and the case was placed for further evidence on 2-4-1981. On 2-4-1981, both the parties filed an application Ex. 63 stating that they are proposing to settle the matter amicably. They requested time from the Court for settling the matter amicably. It appears from the record that the Court adjourned this matter to 6-4-1981. On this day, both the parties filed an application Ex. 64 stating therein that they want to settle the matter amicably. But as their relations are strained, they cannot talk directly with each other. Hence they have appointed 5 panchas viz. 1. Shri Murlidhar Bansilai Charkha, 2. Shri Premsingh Gulati; 3. Shri Sitaram Kisanlal Sharma; 4. Shri Pundalikrao Arjunrao Ingole and 5. Shri Puranmal Bhagirath Charkha, with their consent. They have further stated in the application that whatever verdict the panchas give, will be acceptable to both the parties. The prayer in the application was to grant an adjournment so as to enable the parties to settle the matter amicably. The Court granted this prayer and adjourned the case to 28-4-1981.

(3.) ON the next day i. e. on 29-4-1981, the plaintiffs filed their objections to the verdict of the panchas. These objections are filed at Ex. 66. This application was presented under section 30 of the Arbitration Act. The objections were: