THE COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEERS Vs. M.K. VIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Union of India is directed against the order dated 26-9-86 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati, whereby certain corrections had been made in the decree of the court, passed earlier.

(2.) The dispute, arising out of the C.A. No. CWE/P/TEZ/6 of 72-73 for provision of accommodation at 'A' Station near Rangia, between the parties, i.e., the Union of India, present appellant and the respondent, was referred to the sole arbitrator. The award made was filed in court. Notice was issued to the parties. No objection was filed. On 20-9-86, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati made the award a rule of the court and decree was directed to be drawn up accordingly. Subsequently, it appears that the attention of the court having been drawn, in exercise of power under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure it made the order dated 26-9-86 amending the decree which is impugned in this appeal. The corrections were that 'Claims Nos. 1 and 2' of Part 1 of the award were to form part of the decree. The other correction related to appearance of the Union of India in para 3 of the impugned order, and is not quite material.

(3.) Aggrieved, the Union of India has come in appeal and Shri S.K. Chand Mohammad, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, has submitted that the impugned order was made without notice and without hearing the appellant. Shri S.S. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, has fairly not disputed this submission. However, it appears to me that no useful purpose shall be served by setting aside the impugned order and remission of the matter to the court below for giving opportunity for hearing to the appellant, because even though the court below by the impugned order corrected the decree, it was really not quite necessary since the court had earlier directed the award to be made a rule of the court and the Claims Nos. 1 and 2 of Part 1 of the award therefore formed part of the decree and amendment or correction as such was not really required. It may be noted here that the award is in two parts. The first part dealt with the claim of the Union of India and the second part dealt with the claim of the respondent (contractor). The Claims Nos. 1 and 2 of the Part 1 of the award, which the learned Court below has by the impugned order included in the decree, thus being part of the award which had been made rule of the court in my opinion already formed part of the decree. In this view of the matter, I find no substantial reason to set aside the impugned order. This appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.