PURANAM VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA Vs. T J RATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to revise the order of the 3rd Additional District Munsif. Vijayawada, returning the plaint in O.S. 525 64 on his file under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. What the District Munsif has done in this case is this. An application was filed by the arbitrators under Section 14 of the Act and the Court directed the application to be registered as a suit and it was numbered as O. S. 526/64. THE learned Munsif felt that the suit O. S. 525/64) is misconceived and directed the return of the plaint for following the procedure laid down in Section 14 of the Arbitration Act It is not known when it was first numbered as an O. P. and again under orders of the Court when it was registered as a suit and why the District Munsif should think it is misconceived and ask the petitioner to follow once again the procedure laid down in Section 14 of the Arbitration Act Under Rule 5 of the Rules framed under the Arbitration Act applications made under Section 14 of the Act shall be numbered and registered as suits THErefore what was done by the Munsif viz., registering the application as a suit is in accordance with what is laid down in rule 5 THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised the question that a revision does not lie against the order made under Order 7 Rule 10 and that an appeal alone would lie under Order 43, rule 1 (a) and in support of his contention relied upon a decision of the Madhya Bharat High Court in Tharpal v. Arjun Singh. AIR 1957 Madh Bha 22 THE learned Judge dealing with a case arising under the Arbitration Act where a plaint was rejected by the Court under Order 7, Rule 10 observed:

(2.) THE revision is allowed, the order of the District Munsif returning the plaint for re-presentation is set aside, and he is directed to dispose of the plaint in accordance with the provisions of the statute. THEre will be no order as to costs here.