RUKMANAND Vs. JAWALA DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) THE plaintiffs respondents had instituted in the First Subordinate Judge's Court at Alipore, 24 parganas against the defendant appellant Title Suit No. 56 of 1973 under S.36(6)(a)(i) of the Bengal Money Lenders Act, 1940. THE learned Subordinate Judge has decreed the said suit in the preliminary form. He has ordered that the decree passed by this Court on 14th Mar. 1973 on consent of parties and the transactions of loan between them be reopened and accounts between them be taken. Final decree would be made upon taking of the said accounts between the parties. Being, aggrieved, thereby, the defendant, Rukmanand Khaitan, has preferred this appeal.

(3.) THE said Ram Gopal Agarwalla the Arbitrator, by his award dated December, 1970 directed that Jawala Dutt Lohia and Jewan Kumar Lohia, the plaintiffs, would jointly and severally pay Rukmanand Khaitan, the defendant, a sum of Rs. 95,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the award till payment. Pursuant to the requisition made by Rukmanand Khaitan, on 9th January, 1971 the said Arbitrator had filed his Award in this High Court (Award Case No. 18/1971). THE plaintiff respondents filed in this court an application under Ss.30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for setting aside the said award, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Arbitrator had misconducted himself and the proceedings. S. K. Roy Chowdhury J. by his judgment delivered on 29th June, 1972, had dismissed the said application under Ss.30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940. THE learned Judge, inter alia, held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and no ground had been made for setting aside the same. It would appear from the judgment of the learned Judge that at the time of the hearing of the application for setting aside the said award, the present plaintiffs had mainly urged that the learned Arbitrator had committed an error apparent on the face of the record by allowing the defendants' claim which according to the plaintiffs was already barred by limitation.