SH BALJIT SINGH Vs. SH RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also dispose of Civil Revision No. 3385 of 1986, as the question involved is common in all these cases.

(2.) TWO suits filed by the parties were pending in the trial Court when on March 18, 1986, joint statement was made by the parties along with their counsel that they agreed to refer their dispute which is the subject-matter of the suit to Shri Sarup Chand Gupta, Advocate, for decision. After recording the said statement, the trial Court passed the following order :" in view of the above statement of. the parties and their counsel, the matter in dispute is hereby referred to Sh. Sarup Chand Gupta, Advocate, for decision. Boil the parties shall pay Rs. 200/each to the referee as remuneration for his services. He shall make bis report on 15-4-1986. " After awaiting the report of the referee and adjourning the case thrice, the following statement was made by Sh. Sarup Chand Gupta, Advocate, the referee. "i have heard both sides and have gone through the documents produced by them and have got the site plan prepared and also calculation sheet prepared and I make my statement as per Exhibit PX with detailed reasons therefore and dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. " The same day, the trial Court passed the following order. "present: Counsel for the parties. In view of the above statement of the refereeread with his written statement Ex IX, the suit is hereby dismissed. File fee consigned to the record room. " The plaintiff then filed an appeal against the said decree dismissing the plaintiff's suit in which a preliminary' objected was raised on behalf of the defendants' that since it was a concepts decree, no appel was comretent. The learned Additional District Judge took the view that Shri. Sarup Chand Gupta was mot appointed as a referee. but was appointed as an arbitrator and, therefore, the provision of Section 20 of the Evidence Act. were not attracted. In view of this finding, the application of the defendants was dismissed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submitted that Shri Sarup Chand Gupta, Advocate, was appointed as a referee and not an arbitrator. The view taken by the lower appellate Court in this behalf was wholly wrong end misconceived In support of the contention, the learned counsel relief upon Bishamber Dayal v. Kishan Chand, (1983) 85 P. L. R. 300 and Hari Kishan Dass v. Smt. Daljit Kaur, (1986-1)89 P. L. R. 31. It was also submitted that there was nothing in appeal to be decided by the lower appellate Court as there was no judgment as such which could be appeal- ed against.