ANTARIJAMI KHADANGA Vs. KETAKI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case involves certain complicated questions of law. The facts, however, are very simple, namely that the parties before us made a reference to arbitration for partition of certain properties which were joint, as between them. The sole arbitrator gave an award which was later registered The opposite party No. 1 (Ketaki Devi), deriving her interest from one of the parties to the arbitration, namely, Somanath Khadanga, made an application to the Court below under Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereinafter called "the Act") in order to cause the award to be filed in Court. The award was filed by the arbitrator. Out of the three parties to the arbitration proceeding, only two, namely, the petitioner before us and the opposite party No. 1 preferred objections to the validity or sufficiency of the award. Later, Ketaki Devi withdrew her objection and went on with the proceeding for filing the award and passing a decree thereon. The present petitioner was notified about the proceeding and he put in several objections to the award. The objections can be grouped into two classes, one affecting the award as to its being beyond the subject of reference, and the other its validity -- the arbitration proceeding being vitiated by fraud, collusion and various other illegalities and irregularities.

(2.) THE Court below, after due consideration of the evidence and other materials before him, came to the conclusion that the award was not vitiated by the alleged fraud, confusion or anything of the kind. He, however, decided that the reference to the arbitrator did not contain any reference with regard to the moveables it being confined solely to the immoveable properties that were joint between the parties. He, however, said "it seems that the arbitrator had the consent of the parties to his deciding the dispute as to the moveables.'' He then, proceeded to say that by that decision the award could not be invalidated as the decision with regard to the moveables was clearly severable.

(3.) SO far as the present petition before us is concerned, the only thing that can be said about it is that it is not maintainable and the party has not conducted his case in this Court with any amount of diligence and is not entitled to have any sympathy from this Court. In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs. We assess the hearing fee at two gold mohurs. <DJG>Narasimham, J.</DJG>