SALIMA BIBI ALIAS MALIN BIBI Vs. IBRAHIM SAHEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE simple question that arises for consideration in the Civil Revision Petition is as to the true scope and effect of the Proviso to section 47 of the Arbitration Act, which runs as follows :-

(2.) WITHOUT obtaining the consent of the Court, the subject-matter of the suit was referred to arbitrators and an award was passed by them. According to the plaintiff-petitioner, the award was consented to by both the parties and in token of their consent, they signed on the award. When an application was made under the terms of Order 23, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, read with the Proviso to section 47 of the Arbitration Act, the husband (defendant) contended that he signed on the award without knowing its contents. The Courts below held that as he did not consent to the award at the time when the compromise petition was taken up for consideration, the terms of the Proviso to section 47 of the Arbitration Act was not complied with. I am unable to agree with the view taken by the Courts below.

(3.) AS the parties have signified their consent to the award by signing thereon, I am inclined to hold, following the observations referred to supra, that the terms of the Proviso are satisfied. A contrary view has no doubt been taken by the Patna and Rajasthan High Courts in Zeauddin v. Abdur Rafique, A.I.R. 1952 Pat. 66, and Phool Narain v. Madan Gopal, A.I.R. 1955 Raj. 162. In Zeauddin v. Abdur Rafique, Shearer, J. observed as follows :- "It seems to me quite clear that the consent of the parties required under that Proviso is a consent to the Court taking the arbitration award into consideration, and not, as was suggested by the learned Advocate for the plaintiffs, a consent expressed by the parties out of Court to be bound by the award. "