JIWANAND Vs. RAM KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three connected revision petitions, which arise out of three suits, numbered 41/1, 196/1 and 205/1 of 1953, pertaining to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mahasu. At the instance of the parties, the three suits were referred to arbitration. The arbitrators submitted their award to the Court on 8-11954. parties were given time till 19-2-1954 to file objection, if any, to the awards. No objections were preferred and, thereupon, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge passed decrees in terms of the awards. It is against these decrees that these revision petitions have been filed.

(2.) YESTERDAY, I heard learned counsel for the petitioners. I called upon him to show how these revision petitions were competent, in view of the fact that the petitioners filed no objections to the awards in spite of the fact that they were given an opportunity to do so. To this, learned counsel replied that the petitioners' counsel was absent at that stage and, consequently, they did not realize that they would have to file objections. I am unable to accept this argument. The proceedings of 9-1-1954 and 19-2-1954 are in the hand of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge himself, Mr. Hem Chand. The order-sheet of 9-1-1954 shows clearly that Jiwanand and Mt. Lachmi were present in the Subordinate Judge's Court on that day. They were clearly told that, if they felt aggrieved by the award, they should file their objections by 19-2-1954. Similarly, the order-sheet shows that, on 19-2-1954, Jiwanand was present and no objections to the award were filed. Under these circumstances, it was hardly necessary for the Subordinate Judge to issue a written notice to the parties to file objections, as learned counsel suggests.