MOHAMMAD HASAN Vs. MOHAMMAD ANWAR AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision application is directed against an order of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga, dated the 23rd September, 1965, holding that the filing of the award by the arbitrator was beyond time and the case was, therefore, barred by limitation.

(2.) IT appears that certain disputes between the parties were decided by arbitration without the intervention of the Court, and the arbitrator gave his award on the 16th June, 1963. IT was registered on the 11th July, 1963, and the notice of the making of the award was given to the parties on the 12th July, 1963. The award, however, was filed by the arbitrator in Court on the 22nd April, 1965 and a miscellaneous case, No. 41 of 1965, was started. Opposite party No. 3 of the Court below raised a point that, the award having been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation, it could not be made a rule of the Court as being barred by limitation. IT was contended on his behalf that the question of limitation should be decided as a preliminary point; and the learned Subordinate Judge, reviving on a decision of this Court in Rambilas Mahto v. Durga Bijai Prasad Singh, AIR 1965 Pat 239, held that the award was filed beyond the time prescribed by the Limitation Act, and dismissed the miscellaneous case. Hence the present revision application has been filed in this Court on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 of the Court below.

(3.) THE effect of the view taken above is that the arbitrators can file the award at any time without any consideration of the period of limitation. Counsel for the opposite party has, therefore, urged that such an interpretation of the law results in bringing about inconsistencies on the question of law arising in the present case. According to his argument, if a party wants a direction from the Court to the arbitrator to file the award, he can do so only within the period prescribed under the Limitation Act, as referred to above. It, however, he fails to do so within the prescribed period of limitation, it will always be open to him to get the award filed by an arbitrator at any time he chooses. THEre is no doubt that such inconsistencies may arise on the interpretation of the above Article of the Limitation Act. If, however, on a fair and legal construction of a provision of law, there is an occasion for creating inconsistencies, the Court is helpless, and it is for the Legislature to remove the inconsistency by a proper enactment. THE function of the Court is to interpret a provision of law as it is, and no extraneous consideration can be of any avail if there is no ambiguity in the said provision. Chagla J. (as he then was), in Jayantilal Jamnadas, AIR 1945 Bom 417. pointed out that inconsistencies in a statute are for the Legislature, and to the extent that the language of a section is clear, the Court must give effect to it, especially in a Statute like the Limitation Act which deprives a party of a valuable right.