SAIT PAMANDASS SUGNARAM Vs. T S MANIKYAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant herein against the respondent) for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 709/6.00 on the foot of a promissory note said to have been executed by them on 29-7-1952, for Rs. 625.00. The first defendant remained ex parte while the second defendant resisted the suit on the ground (a) that the pronote was not supported by consideration and (b), that all the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendants, relating to the claims of the plaintiff as against them were referred to the arbitration of two persons of Kumool under an agreement of reference to arbitration dated 1-11-1953. The defendant further alleged that after due enquiry the arbitrators gave their award on 29-11-1953 holding that only a sum of Rupees 2,500 was due by the defendant to the plaintiff. It was urged that since there was a valid agreement of reference to arbitration in respect of the very claim for which the suit was filed and an award had been passed, the present suit was not sustainable in view of Section 32 of the Indian Arbitration Act. 2. After the institution of the suit, the 2nd defendant filed a petition I. A. 883/53, to direct one of the arbitrators, S. Satyanarayana to file into court the award passed by him in respect of the suit claim and other claims. A counter was filed by the plaintiff and notice given to Satyanarayana, the arbitrator. The arbitrator filed the award into court on 8-1-1954 together with the acknowledgments of the plaintiff and the defendants dated 1-12-1953 and 3-12-1953 of the notice intimating about the passing of the award. 3. The defendant, as has been stated above, raised the objection to the maintainability of the suit pleading the bar of Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, while the plaintiff attacked the award on various grounds that the very reference to arbitration was invalid because no umpire had been appointed the arbitrators being even in number. It was also urged that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act for the filing of the award, as admittedly the matters that were referred to arbitrators were of the value of not less than Rs. 20,000.00. A further ground taken was that the award was signed only by one of the arbitrators which vitiated the award. The Munsif after hearing the respective parties came to the conclusion that it could not be said that the plaintiffs suit was barred. In the result he decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 4. On appeal the District Judge, was of the opinion that the approach by the Munsiff was misconceived and finally he came to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable in law. He held that the passing of an award pursuant to a valid reference was by itself an answer to the plaintiffs claim. In the end he dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower court had grossly erred in interpreting Section 32 of the Arbitration Act. It was also urged that the value of the subject matter of the claim before the arbitrators was over Rs. 20,000.00and as such the award could not have been filed in the Munsif Court, the value being beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. On the basis of these arguments it was urged that the plaintiff was entitled to file a suit on the basis of the promissory note in his favour. On behalf of the defendant-respondents the argument put forward was that Section 32 of the Arbitration Act was a clear bar to the institution of a suit based on the samel claim which formed the subject matter of the reference to arbitration and for this purpose reliance was placed upon a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Surya Narayana Reddi v. Venkata Reddi, 1948-1 Mad LJ 317 : (AIR 1948 Mad 436). 6. Section 32 of the Arbitration Act is as follows: