JAGAN NATH Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS giving rise to this revision petition are these.

(2.) THERE was a dispute between the parties which on 7-4-1979 was referred to an arbitrator for decision. The arbitrator on 26-7-1979 passed the award. Jagan Nath, the petitioner herein, presumably on notice received of the making of the award, filed an application on 10-8-1979 for the filing in court of the award for making it a rule of Court: Within the time prescribed, from the date of service of the notice of the filing of the award, Hans Raj, one of the respondents herein, filed objections claiming that the award be not made rule of the Court The Court applied its mind, but came to the conclusion on 16-10-1980 that the award could not be made rule of Court until and unless it was registered. The appellate Court, however, upset that order and the matter was remitted back to the trial Judge for re-decision. It is at this stage that on 17-2-1984 an application was moved by Jagan Nath petitioner, seeking to amend his application for filing in Court the award to make it a rule of Court. This application was allowed on 21-2-1984 whereby two factual statements were allowed to be added to. Consequently, the application dated 10-8-1979 preferred by Jagan Nath, petitioner for making the award the rule of Court was formally amended. THEREupon on 5-3-1984 Hans Raj, filed an amended objection petition for setting aside the award, taking shelter of the circumstance that the petitioner had been allowed to amend his application for the making of award the rule of the Court. This course was objected to by the petitioner. Shri Vinod Jain, Sub Judge IInd Class, Kaithal, the learned Judge dealing with the matter, taking shelter of the rule enunciated in Jagdish Parshad v. Dhensi Ram (1977) 79 Pun LR 670 took the view that when one party is allowed to amend his pleading, then there is no restriction imposed upon the other side for filing an amended reply, and it was within its legal competence to take all available new grounds which were not previously taken in the original reply. Challenging this view of the learned trial Judge, the petitioner has approached this Court in revision.

(3.) THIS petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 17-4-1984 is set aside, but without any order as to costs. Parties through their counsel are directed to put in appearance before the trial Judge oh 22-10-1984. No costs. Order accordingly.