WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. HEMADRI CEMENTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 2 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to revise the order in I.A.No. 453 of 1988 in O.S.No. 2 of 1988 dated 1-2-1989 by which the learned Judge set aside the exparte decree passed by him on 8-11-1988.

(2.) THE plaintiff M/s.Walchand Nagar Industries Ltd., filed the suit to issue notices to defendants 2 and 3 i.e., the Joint Arbitrators to file their unanimous award made, signed, pronounced and published by them on 2-2-1987 at Hyderabad with all documents, evidence and minutes of the meeting, pronounce the judgment in terms of the award and inter alia pass the decree as per the provisions of Section 17 of the Arbitration Act granting the decree for the sum of Rs. 20, 79, 954.28 as awarded by the defendants 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant No. 1 and also award interest at 18% on the sum of Rs. 17, 74, 858.00 from 30-6-1986 till the payment of the said amount by the 1st defendant Company to the plaintiff Company. THE first defendant filed the written statement and objections for passing the award as prayed for by the plaintiffs. THE 1st defendants also gave reasons to the passing of the decree in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the written statement. THE 1st defendant filed O.P.No. 41 of 1988 for setting aside the award made. On 7-11-1988 no representation was made on behalf of the 1st defendant who is petitioner in O.P. 41/88. THE first defendant was, therefore, set ex parte and the O.P. was dismissed for default. After recording the evidence of P.W-1, judgment was pronounced by the Court on 8-11-1988. THE learned Judge decreed the suit allowing the suit claim after approving the award made by the Joint Arbitrators as Rule of the Court.

(3.) BOTH the parties submitted written arguments before the lower Court. The lower Court on the basis of the material submitted by the parties and considering the contentions raised by them found that the reasons that have been mentioned by the defendant for not being present on 7-11-1988 are sound and acceptable and came to the conclusion that the ex parte order is liable to be set aside.