MOTI RAM Vs. SARDHU RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties to this revision had entered into an arbitration agreement to refer the dispute between them about the agricultural land to the arbitrator. The arbitrator gave the award (to ?) Moti Ram, who is one of the parties to the award and arbitration agreement, filed an application before the Court below for directing the arbitrator to file the award and to make it rule of the Court. After the awards filed, notice of the award was given to respondents 1 and 2, who are the contesting parties. They filed reply admitting all averments made in the application filed by the petitioner and prayed that the award should be made rule of the Court, the Court looked at the Jamabandi and found that the name of Jawali (respondent No. 2) was not entered therein, as owner. It was pointed out that Sadhu Ram (respondent No. 1) was shown owner in the Jamabandi and he had transferred that land to Smt. Jawali and the fact of transfer was admitted by Sadhu Ram before the arbitrator and also in reply to the application for making the award rule of the Court. The triall Court instead of making the award rule of the Court asked the parties to produce evidence of their ownership with regard to the property which was the subject matter of arbitration. Against the aforesaid order dated 30.5.1984, the petitioner came to this Court in revision.

(2.) Shri D.S. Keer, appearing for respondents 1 and 2 who are the only contesting parties-respondent No. 3 being the arbitrator, has stated at the bar that he still maintains that the award should be made rule of the Court, which was given by the arbitrator on the basis of the statements of the parties. In these circumstances, I do not consider that it is a fit a case in which the trial Court should probe further into the matter and should satisfy itself whether the parties are owners or not. So far as the parties are concerned, their inter se dispute between them would be settled by arbitration award and by making it rule of the Court. It is well settled that the interest of the persons who are not parties to this litigation, would not be effected.

(3.) In view of the above, the trial Court is directed to make the award rule of the Court instead of calling upon the parties to lead evidence when they are not at variance. This revision petition stands disposed of accordingly.