RULIA RAM Vs. MANGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision has been filed against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, dated January 24, 1974.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Rulia Ram, Petitioner, took a loan of Rs. 5800 from) Mangat Ram, Respondent, and executed a pronote in his favour. He agreed to return the amount with interest at the, rate of 1 per cent per mensem. A dispute arose between the parties and they appointed Madan Lal as the sole arbitrator by an agreement dated November 26, 1968, Exhibit P. 1. The Arbitrator, after hearing the parties passed an award on December 16, 1968, Exhibit P -4, in, favour of Mangat Ram, Respondent,. for Rs. 7,200. The Petitioner was directed to pay the amount in two instalments of Rs. 3,600 each The first instalment was to be paid in May, 1969 and the second, in November, 1969. It was also mentioned that if any instalment was not paid on its due date, the balance would be payable in lumpsum. A charge was also created on the immovable property belonging to the Petitioner. An Application was filed by the Arbitrator in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, praying that the award be made a rule of the Court Respondent filed objections to the award. He, inter -alia, state that there was no valid arbitration agreement, that the Arbitrator misconducted himself and there was no valid award as it had not been registered. The trial Court held that there was valid arbitration agreement, that the Arbitrator had not misconducted himself and that the award was valid. Consequently it dismissed the objections and made the award a rule of the Court. Rulia Ram went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Karnal, who held that the part of the award wherein a charge had been created on the immovable property belonging "to the Petitioner was invalid, but the remaining part was valid. On the other matters, he affirmed the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge. He consequently partly accepted the appeal and modified the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge. Rulia Ram has come up in revision against the order of the Additional District Judge. Karnal, to this Court.

(3.) THE second contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is that there was no valid agreement to refer the matter to the Arbitrator as no dispute existed between the parties. This contention was not raised before the Courts below. I however, have considered the matter but regret my inability to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. A reading of the judgments of the Senior Subordinate Judge and the Additional District Judge shows that there was a dispute regarding the execution of the pronote. The Petitioner had, in his statement before the Court even denied its execution. A disputed matter can always be referred to an Arbitrator. I, therefore, reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner,