NIRMAL SINGH Vs. NIRANJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Hissar by which he affirmed the decision of the executing Court dismissing the objections filed by Nirmal Singh petitioner against an award made by two Arbitrators in favour of the respondent.

(2.) There is hardly any dispute in regard to the facts. A suit was filed by Niranjan Singh respondent against Nirmal Singh petitioner and Bishan Singh for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated September 12, 1960 which had been executed by Shrimati Luxmi Bai, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. The allegation made in the suit was that Rs. 6,000/- had been paid to the said Luxmi Bai out of a total agreed amount of Rs. 8,500/- as price of the property sold. The remaining amount of Rs. 2,500/- was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of the registration. Meanwhile, Luxmi Bai died and Nirmal Singh petitioner along with Bishan Singh succeeded to her property. The suit was contested by the defendants. When it was at the final stage, the parties entered into an agreement to refer the dispute to the arbitration of three persons, namely, Avtar Singh, Hari Singh and Pritam Singh. It transpires that only two of these three Arbitrators, i.e., Avtar Singh and Hari Singh recorded their award on March2, 1971 which is Exhibit C.1. As per this award, the two Arbitrators held that Shrimati Luxmi Bai, the original owner had received Rs. 6,000/- and in accordance with the agreement entered into by her with the respondent-vendee, her successors i.e., the petitioner and his co-defendant should be paid the balance of Rs. 2,500/- by the respondent and a sale deed be ordered to be executed and registered. The purchaser was to bear the expenses of registration. On the basis of this award, the trial Court proceeded to pass a decree in favour of the respondent. Though there is hardly any necessity to mention any other detail, but it may be stated that an appeal having been filed against the decision of the trial Court, the case was sent back to the trial Court to decide the objections against the award after allowing opportunity to the parties to produce evidence and give a fresh decision in the matter. The trial Court then gave opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and after dismissing the objections made the award the rule of the Court and passed the decree in terms thereof.

(3.) An appeal was again preferred against the decision of the trial Court and various points were urged before the lower appellate Court, i.e. the Additional District Judge, Hissar. None of these points was found convincing to the lower appellate Court and the appeal was, therefore, dismissed. The present is a Revision Petition against the said order.