RAJ KUMAR Vs. CHANDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the order dated 22.4.1995 passed by Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ambala City dismissing the application of the petitioner presented under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for brevity 'the Act'). The Civil Judge has held that the petitioner who is general power of attorney which has been cancelled would not be competent to present the application.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that one Chander Singh, Contractor-respondent No. 1 secured a contract for executing certain works from the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (for brevity 'the Board'). respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Some differences have arisen between the parties which resulted into reference to the Arbitration, respondent No. 4. The award was announced by the Arbitrator. The petitioner claiming to be the assignee of the Contractor for a valuable consideration of Rs. 40,000/- by respondent No. 1 claimed that general power of attorney was executed by respondent No. 1 on 19.4.1988 in his favour which was irrevocable and thereafter the agreement was executed on 10.5.1998 assigning the contract to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. On the basis of the aforementioned documents, the petitioner filed an application before the Civil Judge, Ambala City under Section 17 of the Act praying that the award dated 11.3.1994 announced by the Arbitrator be made the rule of the Court. The application was opposed by Contractor-respondent No. 1 by taking the plea that the general power of attorney relied upon by the petitioner was revoked by registered document which was exhibited as Ex. A2 and, therefore, on the basis of the aforementioned general power of attorney, the petitioner was not competent to file an application under Section 17 of the Act. It was further pleaded that no agreement dated 10.5.1988 was ever executed by contractor-respondent No. 1 in favour of the petitioner. The Civil Judge after detailed consideration of the evidence recorded the following finding holding that the general power of attorney in favour of the petitioner stood revoked :

(3.) THE other reasons for rejection of the application of the petitioner filed under Section 17 of the Act are that no plea was taken by him with regard to General Power of Attorney or the agreement dated 22.4.1988 when he filed the original petition with the prayer that award dated 11.3.1994 be made rule of the Court. Had he purchased the contract from Contractor respondent No. 1, he should have mentioned this fact in the original petition. Grave doubts have been entertained about the execution of the agreement Ex. R1 dated 22.4.1988. The findings of the Civil Judge in this regard are as under :