M S ASSOCIATES Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is preferred under Section 115 read with Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Petitioner, M/s M.S. Associates, (A Registered Firm), represented by the Constituted Attorney Shri M. P. Limboo, against the Order dated 19.6.97 passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 52/97 in connection with Title Suit (Arb.) No. 192/95 by the Civil Judge(Senior Division No. 1), Guwahati, by virtue of which the petition so filed by the present Petitioner under Order 47 Rule 1 for making modification by deleting the later part of the order so passed by the learned Civil Judge. (Senior Division No. 1) Guwahati on 20.05.97 in the above mentioned arbitration case is not considered under said Petition for review and is rejected.

(2.) The stand of the present Petitioner giving rise to the present Revision Petition for consideration put in narrow compass is that in the said arbitration case vide it's order dated 20.05.97 the learned Court below was pleaded to appoint arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes arising out of the parties relating to the running of the Lotteries and in continuity of the said order after such appointment of the arbitrator. The learned Court below had also directed the parties to co-operate with the learned Arbitrator and the Arbitrator was requested to file award within a statutory period of 4 months after receipt of the order of appointment. The parties were also directed to obtain the certified copy of the order dated 20.05.97 and to file the same before the Arbitrator informing him about the appointment of as Arbitrator and furthermore necessary fee of the arbitrator, place of arbitrator proceeding etc. were to be decided by the arbitrator by negotiation with the parties.

(3.) After passing of the order, the present Petitioner it further transpires filed a review Petition before the same Court on 18.6.97 stating therein that so far as the appointment of the Arbitrator is concerned so appointed by the Court's order dated 20.5.97, the Petitioner has nothing to say. The points so raised for review and modification of the order dated 20.5.97 was that in the later part of the order after appointment the direction so given as detailed above can be said as good as making the reference which the learned Court below was not entitled to do under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 because that was the domain relating to the reference to be made while exercising power under Section 20(4) of the said Act. In that light the stand so taken in the review Petition by the present Petitioner was that the learned Court below while passing orders on 20.5.97 has in excess of his jurisdiction asked the Arbitrator as to make the award within 4 months giving direction to the parties to co-operate with the Artitrator etc. which is an error apparent on the face of the record and which may be a good ground for the parties for declaring the award when so made invalid in the light of the provisions of Section 30(c) of the Act. Foreseeing this danger by way of abundant pre-caution, this Petition is so filed by the present Petitioner when his; review Petition was not so considered favourably by the order dated 19.6.97 passed by the learned Court below.