SEWA RAM (DIED) AND ORS. Vs. CHAMPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for determination in this revision petition is whether the decree passed by the Court on 23.7.1974 making the award pronounced by the Arbitrator on 23.7.1974 itself is without jurisdiction or a nullity being in contravention of Sec. 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for brevity, the Act) or it is mere irregularity without vitiating the decree dated 23.7.1974.

(2.) The brief facts of the case which are necessary to decide the controversy before me are that there were some money dealings between The parties on 23.7.1974. The parties entered into an agreement to make a reference of the disputed amounts between them to Arbitrator, namely, Shri Bhagwat Swaroop. The Arbitrator allegedly conducted arbitration proceedings and filed an award in the Court of the Senior Sub Judge, Gurgaon for making it a rule of the Court. After recording the statements of decree holder and the judgment debtor the award for Rs. 5,150/ - was made rule of the Court on 23.7.1974 itself. In case of failure to make payment in instalment as stipulated in the decree, the judgment debtor was to pay interest @ 7 -1/2 per cent per annum. The statement made by the judgment debtor makes an interesting reading and when translated reads as under:

(3.) The decree was not complied with resulting into filing of an execution application by the decree holder on 22.3.1978. The execution application was opposed by the judgment debtor by filing objection petition under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Various objections were raised including the objection that the decree was obtained by the decree holder by fraud and misrepresentation and it was also alleged that the decree was passed by making the award as the rule of the Court in complete contravention of the provisions of Sec. 17 of the Act. The judgment debtor further contended that no notice as postulated by Sec. 17 of the Act was issued nor any opportunity to file reply was given by the Court while passing the decree on 23.7.1974. Sustaining the objection that the decree passed by the Court lacked jurisdiction and that the decree was nullity, the leaned trial court in its order dated 18.11.1980 held as under: