RAMESHWAR LAL Vs. MANGI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by the plaintiff directed against the order of the appellate Court, directing the recording of a compromise under Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the suit on the basis of an award accepted by the parties to it.

(2.) THE short facts are that the plaintiff petitioner filed the suit against the defendant opposite party for realisation of arrears of rent and electric charges and for his eviction. It appears that another suit for similar reliefs was filed by the petitioner against another tenant named Banarsi Lal Agarwal. THE parties agreed to have their disputes decided and settled by an arbitrator by an agreement dated the 1st December, 1962 (Ext. A). In pursuance of this agreement, the arbitrator looked into the cases of the parties and their evidence and gave his award (Ext. 1) dated the 4th December 1962. All the three parties, viz., the petitioner, the opposite party and Banarsi Lal Agarwal, signed this award in token of their acceptance of it below the following endorsement which occurs in the copy of the award Ext. E "Hamlog is faisle ko manzur karte hain;" that is to say '"we accept this decision." THE opposite party 'filed an application before the learned Munsif under Order 23, Rule 3, for recording the compromise, as evidenced by the award which was accepted by the parties. THE learned Munsif rejected the application on the ground that in view of the proviso to Section 47 of the Arbitration Act, the award could not be considered as a compromise or adjustment of the dispute in the suit between the parties, as tile petitioner was not consenting in Court to its being so considered. I may state here that the case of the petitioner that he was made to sign the award after being intoxicated by administering bhang has concurrently been rejected by both the Courts below, and the finding could not be attacked in revision. THE lower appellate Court, however, in regard to the question of law has taken a view different from the one taken by the first Court and has held that the award, after its acceptance by the parties, could be treated as a compromise between them and it could be recorded under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 3 of the Code. Hence, the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.

(3.) IN the result, I hold that the view taken by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge is cor rect. The application must fail and is dismissed; but, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I would make no order as to costs.