GOPINATH PATI Vs. JAGANNATH PATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the Order Dated 21.2.1995 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada in M.J.C. No. 33 of 1994 (arising out of T.S. No. 62 of 1991) setting aside the award dated 28.4.1991 filed Under Section 14(2) of the Act and dismissing the suit.

(2.) THE facts of the case as unfolded from the record are as follows: The present Appellants and Respondent No. 1 are the 3 sons of one late Baidyanath Pati of village Khanda Deula, P.S. Baisingha, district -Mayurbhanj. The family had possessed both movable and immovable properties. As there were some difficulties in joint possession of the properties, the Appellants referred the dispute to the Arbitrators in writing on 21.10.1990 and authorized them to partition their properties. After hearing the parties and on a thorough examination of the materials, the Arbitrators allotted three separate allotments to the three brothers by passing an award on 28.4.1991. The said award was registered on a stamp paper on 29.6.1991 and filed in the Court of the Learned Sub -Judge, Baripada (now Civil Judge (Senior Division), Baripada) Under Section 14(2) of the Act which was registered as Title Suit No. 62 of 1991 Thereafter, the Court below issued notice which was received by Respondent No. 1 on 10.7.1991. On 4.9.1991, Respondent No. 1 filed his objection Under Section 33 of the Act which was registered as M.J.C. No. 33 of 1994. The present Appellants filed their counter to the said objection in M.J.C No. 33 of 1994. The parties adduced their oral as well as documentary evidence. After hearing the parties, the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) allowed the M.J.C. on contest without cost on 21.2.1995 setting aside the award dated 28.4.1991 and dismissed the suit.

(3.) AS the award passed by the Arbitrators is equitable, Respondent No. 1 submitted that the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) liberally discussed the objections filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 33 of the Act and after considering the materials available on record, he passed a reasoned order setting aside the award. Therefore, the Court below committed no illegality or irregularity and hence the impugned orders need not be interfered with.