BISHAMBER DAYAL Vs. KISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff-appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Rohtak, dated Sept. 6, 1980, whereby the decree of the trial Court making the decision of the reference the rule of the Court holding that his objection petition was not maintainable, was upheld.

(2.) THE plaintiff had filed the suit prying for a decree to the effect that the decree dated July 17, 1964, passed between the parties on the basis of the compromise, was illegal and the same was based upon misrepresentation committees by defendant No. 2, Raghbir Dayal. A further prayer was also made that after declaring the said decree as void and illegal, the proceedings should be commenced afresh from the stage of the passing of the preliminary decree in the previous suit. During the pendency of the present suit, on Jan, 9, 1980, Dr. S. S. Jain was appointed as a referee by the trail Court on the joint statement made by the parties be that the suit filed by the parties be dismissed as withdrawn. Though, there in, he also gave certain other directions, but the same are not relevant for the purposes of this appeal. Against the decision of the abovesaid referee, objections were filed on behalf of the plaintiff which were dismissed by the trial Court as not maintainable because the decision of the referee was not an award a contemplated called the Act ). Consequently, the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Dissatisfied with the same, he has come up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) THE only short point involved in this case is whether Dr. S. S. Jain was appointed as a referee, or as an arbitrator as provided under Act. It is the common case of the parties that in case he was appointed as a referee, then no objection could be filed against his decision whereas if it is held that he was appointed as an arbitrator, then objections filed against his award, under the Act, are to be held as maintainable. The concurrent findings of both the Courts are that Dr. S. S. Jain was appointed as a referee and not as an arbitrator. The lower appellate Court has reproduced the joint statement of the parties made on Jan, 9, 1980, on the basis of which Dr. S. S. Jain was appointed as a referee, in the judgment under appeal. it reads,----