MADAN LAL Vs. DAULAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants aggrieved of the order dated 23 -7 -1987, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 92/1975, filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for short, the 'Act', preferred against the order dated 16 -5 -1975, passed by Second Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Suit No. 10 -A; 1975, have preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Madhya Pradesh High Court.

(2.) THE appeal so preferred against the judgment and decree passed under S. 17 of the Act by the trial Court was partly allowed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the award in relation to two properties dealt with in para 8 of the Order was declared as invalid, while the rest of the award in respect of the other items of dispute was maintained with a direction to parties to take recourse to proceedings in accordance with law to establish their right, title and interest in relation to the two properties, of which the award was declared as invalid.

(3.) BEFORE we deal with the question, it be stated that it is a well settled principle of law that the right of appeal is not a natural and inherent right of a person in respect of any litigation, but the same is a creature of a statute, which governs and regulates the appeal. If the right of appeal does not exist and cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by a statute or the rules having the force of a statute, no right of appeal would be available. This appeal arises out of an order passed in appeal preferred under S. 39 of the Act, which we reproduce