(1.) This first appeal is directed against the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Sirmui dismissing the objections of the Appellant and making the award a rule of the Court under Sec. 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Appellant Guru Dutt had purchased a lot of resin blazes from the Forest Department for a consideration of Rs. 24,000/ - and odd and the agreement thereof was executed on April 5, 1966. Subsequently a dispute arose between the Appellant and the Union of India and the said dispute was referred to arbitration under Clause 50 of the agreement. Accordingly the Conservator of Forests, Simla, was appointed arbitrator. He gave his award on April 19, 1969. Thereafter the award was filed in Court and usual notices were issued to the Appellant as well as to the Union of India. Objections were filed on behalf of the Appellant and the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed these objections. The Appellant has felt aggrieved of that decision and has come up in appeal.
(2.) It was contended on behalf of the Appellant, that he could not address arguments before the learned Subordinate Judge as he had not paid costs which were awarded for adjournment on the previous date. The order of the learned Subordinate Judge for adjournment was conditional on payment of Rs. 100/ - as costs. This is clear from his order, dated June 30, 1970. When the costs were not paid, the adjournment could be deemed refused and if the case was set down for arguments, the Appellant had no right to address the arguments. Nevertheless the learned Subordinate Judge considered the entire evidence and gave his decision. I do not consider nor has it been shown in what manner the Appellant was prejudiced,
(3.) That apart the objection to this effect was never raised before the learned Subordinate Judge when he set down the case for arguments. When no such ground was taken before the learned trial Court it is difficult to say at this stage as to how the Appellant was prejudiced if no arguments were addressed on his side.