INDURTHI SRINIVASA RAO Vs. INDURTHI VENKATA NARASIMHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure. The application is to revise the order of the District Judge of Warangal setting aside an award in Case No. 102 of 1956 under Section 30(c) of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner herein originally filed an appeal under Section 39(1) (vi) of the Arbitration Act. But, on an objection taken by the office, he converted it into a revision petition under Section 115 C.P.C.

(2.) THE relevant facts for the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition are as follows:-- THE parties viz., Indurthi Srinivasa Rao and Indurthi Prahlada Rao represented by his guardian Anjani Bai and Indurthi Venkatanarasimha Rao referred their disputes to arbitration by executing an agreement on 11-2-1955 in favour of five arbitrators. THE four arbitrators chose an umpire Kudikala Venkatarama Rao. As the award could not be made within four months, they executed a fresh agreement of reference dated 10-10-1955 in favour of the same arbitrators. An award was made on a plain sheet of paper signed by all the five arbitrators. On 17-4-1956 one of the arbitrators by name Murlidhar Rao died. THE award dated 28-1-1956 was engrossed on stamp paper on 21-5-1956 and was signed by the four arbitrators (the fifth arbitrator having died by that time). THE re-written award signed by the four arbitrators was submitted for registration by the umpire Kudikala Venkata Rama Rao on 19-6-1956 and it was registered on 27-6-1956. THE umpire Kudikala Venkata Rama Rao filed an application under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act. Notice was issued to the parties to file their objections and Indurthi Venkafa Narasimna Rao among other objections raised the objection that the award dated 28-1-1956 was invalid as it was not duly stamped and registered. He also contended that the arbitrators had become functus officio as soon as they signed the award on 28-1-1956 and that the re-written award dated 21-5-1956 though duly stamped and registered is not valid. THE learned District Judge held that as soon as the arbitrators had made the award on 28-1-1956, they became functus officio and they had no jurisdiction to re-write the award on stamp paper and have it registered. He also held that as the re-written award had been presented after four months from the date of the execution of the award it was invalid. It is against this order that the petitioner has filed the revision petition to this Court.

(3.) SO far as the first contention is concerned, it is governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Riknab-dass v. Ballabhdas, (AIR 1962 SC 551). Sarkar, J. delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court, held that as soon as the award is signed by the arbitrators, they become functus officio. The question that arose for decision before the Supreme Court was whether the Trial Court was justified in passing an order remitting the award to the arbitrator for re-submitting it to the Court on a duly stamped paper and after getting it registered. The Supreme Court held that such an order does not fall within the provisions of Section 16(1) (c) of the Arbitration Act. In dealing with that objection, the learned Judge observed as follows:--