HARI CHAND GANDHI Vs. SURESH GANDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge (II), Faridabad dated 24.4.1999. The learned Counsel for the petitioner basically contended that the compromise before the Court was a result of fraud and as such the only remedy available to him was to file a separate suit. He further contended that on the averments made in the plaint, the petitioner was entitled to interim injunction in relation to execution of a decree dated 28.9.1992.

(2.) I am unable to appreciate any substance in either of the afore-stated contentions. Admittedly, the petitioner herein had been a party to the partnership deed dated 11.3.1987 which contained the arbitration clause. An arbitrator was appointed in furtherance to the arbitration agreement between the parties and because of some disputes having arisen. The petitioner participated in the arbitration proceedings and finally an award was pronounced by the arbitrator. The petitioner vide letter dated 8.2.1992 had in fact requested defendants No. 2 and 3 to modify the award as they had wrongly included the assets of M/s Gandhi Silk Emporium. Under the provisions of Section 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, the parties approached the Court for award being made rule of the Court. The petitioner filed objections on 26.6.1992 taking up the pleas now sought to be raised and prayed for acceptance of objections and consequentially settling aside of the award in relation to the above aspect.

(3.) The parties including the petitioner made a statement before the Court and in furtherance to their statements objections were dismissed and the award dated 4.7.1991 was made rule of the Court and decree drawn in terms thereof vide order dated 28.9.1992. The said decree founded on the basis of the award of the arbitrator was not assailed in appeal or otherwise by the present petitioner. The petitioner has evolved a unique method of filing an independent suit challenging the award dated 4.7.1991 and decree dated 28.9.1992 being a nullity in law because the objections were got conceded by playing a fraud upon the petitioner.