RAM LAKHAN MAHTO Vs. MUKHDEO MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by the defendant against whom an award has been made a rule of the Court at the instance of the original plaintiff who died during the pendency of the case in the lower appellate Court and was substituted by the present opposite parties.

(2.) BOTH the parties are descendants from a common ancestor and when a dispute cropped up between them for division of the landed properties, they entered into an arbitration agreement on 30th June, 1962, for getting the dispute resolved by four named arbitrators. The arbitration agreement was also registered. The arbitrators entered upon the reference on 15th July, 1962, and then after taking evidence, gave their award on 18th April, 1963, which was also scribed , on stamp-paper on 3rd July, 1963 and registered on the same day. There has been some difference between the parties as to whether on 18th April, 1963, when the decision of the arbitrators was announced, it was already drawn up on a paper or not but, however, in view of the questions that have been raised before us, this fact has no relevancy. Baldeo Mahto, the ancestor of the opposite parties, then filed a title suit, being No. 164 of 1963, in the Court of Munsif I at Buxar along with the registered award itself with a prayer that a decree may be passed in terms of the award. The plaint which contains only six paragraphs and seems to have been drafted in the mofassil, stated that it has been agreed between the parties that the award could be filed in Court in terms of Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act for making it a rule of the Court and, accordingly, the award was being filed. The defendant-petitioner appeared on 30th January, 1964. He filed a petition for time to file written statement which was ultimately filed on 4th March, 1964, taking various pleas, namely, (i) the arbitrators have misconducted themselves; (ii) the suit as framed was not maintainable because the award in question had not been filed in terms of the requirements of Section 14 (2) i. e. by the arbitrators; and, (iii) the suit was barred by limitation, i e., under Article 178 of the old Limitation Act corresponding to Article 119 of the new Limitation Act. The trial Court overruled the defendant on all the questions and came to the following conclusions- (i) The defendant failed to prove his case of misconduct on the part of the arbitrators; (ii) There was no defect in filing of the suit; and, (iii) The delay in filing the suit was fit to be condoned.

(3.) MR. Shreedeva Narayan, appearing in support of this application, has emphatically contended that the title suit as framed and constituted was not maintainable in view of the fact that the award had not been filed by the arbitrators and the plaintiff had not made out any case that he filed the same under their authority. Before I consider to discuss this argument it would be useful to quote Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act which reads thus :--