HARMMAN COOPERATIVE SUGARS LIMITED Vs. Y CHAKRADHARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thij Judgment disposes of these three C.M. As. by the same appellant, which arise out of the common order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nuzvid on 29-3-1985 in O P. No. 65/84 and in LA. Nos. 16 and 17 of 1984. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in C.M.A. No. 666/1915.

(2.) The first respondent, a contractor, entered into an agreement with the appellant to construct a guest house and an administrative office for Sri Hunuman Co-operative Sugars Limited. The first respondent claims to have constructed the buildings, but as the amounts due to him under the agreement were not paid, he issued notice to the appellant for recovery of Rs. 98,000/-. The disputes between the parties under the said agreement were referred to the Arbitrator before whom the first respondent laid claim for Rs. 3,58,500/- with 21% interest thereon against the appellant. After considering the rival contentions of the parties the Arbitrator, the second respondent, passed the award in favour of the first respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,29,500/- on March, 14, 1983. The second respondent filed the award under Section 14-(2) of the Arbitration Act (for short the Act) in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge Vijayawada. The first respondent also filed an application under Section 17 of the Act in the said Court for making the award rule of the Court on 13-4-1943 Notices of these petitions were sent by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayawada to the appellant. The appellant filed an original petition under Section 30 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as 'O.P.') to set aside the award. On June, 10, 1983 the, petitions filed by the first respondent and the second respondent were returned by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Vijayawada for presentation before proper Court. The O.P. filed by the appellant was also returned for presenting in the proper Court as the petitions filed by the respondents had already been returned to them for presentation in the proper Court. The first respondent and the second respondent presented the said petitions in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Gudivada, which were numbered as O.P. Nos. 48 and 49 of 1983. Notices of these O Ps. were sent to the appellant and were received by him on 20-6-1983. He then filed the O.P. in the Sub-Court, Gudivada on 15-7-1983, which w\as numbered as O.P. 65 of 1984. All these O.Ps. were later transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Nuzvid. The learned Subordinate Judge, Nuzvid decreed O.Ps. 48 and 49 of 1983 on 12-8-1983 to which date they were adjourned after setting the respondent therein ex parte. Thereafter the appellant filed I.A.No. 16 of 198-1 in O P No. 48 of S3 and LA. No. 17/84 in O P. Nos. 49/83 to set aside the exparte decree dated 12-8 -1983. These two I.As and the O.P. filed by the appellant were heard together and disposed of by a common order on March, 29, 1985. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the O.P. filed by the appellant on the ground that the O.P. is barred by limitation and dismissed the two IAs. on the ground that no sufficient cause has been made out to set aside the ex parte decree. C.M.A. No. 666 of 1985 is directed against dismissal ofO,P. 65 of 1984 and CM. A.No. 667 and 668 of J985 are filed against dismissal of I.A. 16 of 1984 and I.A. 17 of 1984 respectively.

(3.) Sri P. Anil Kumar Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing O.P. No. 65 of 1984 on the ground that the O.P. is barred by limitation, is bad in law : whereas Sri C.V. Kanyaka Prasad, the learned counsel for the first respondent, submits that the learned Subordinate Judge has rightly taken into consideration the fact of. non-presentation of the O.P. before the proper Court immediately after the same was returned by the Sub Court, Vijayawada, and not getting it numbered and, therefore, the order under appeal is unassailable.