BHOORMAL Vs. NARAIN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the plaintiffs against an appellate order of the Civil Judge, Sojat.

(2.) THE plaintiffs instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 978. 9. 6 against the defendant on 10. 9. 53. During the pendency of the suit a reference to arbitration was made through the intervention of the court. THE award was filed in court on 7. 9. 55. THE parties were not present on that date as the court had fixed 10. 9. 55 for the appearance of the parties in anticipation of the award being filed.

(3.) ON behalf of the plaintiffs it is urged that the decision of the learned Civil Judge is erroneous. It is contended that the objection filed by the defendant on 31. 10. 55 and signed by him personally is signed by Shri Manak Lal also which shows that he was appearing for him in this suit. The order-sheet dated 26. 9. 55 also shows that he was appearing for the defendant at that stage of the case. It may be mentioned here that several lawyers were engaged by the defendant in this case to represent him. Shri Chiranji Lal appeared for the defendant on 26. 9. 55. The defendant himself admitted that he was given notice of the filing of the award by the court on 26. 9. 55. This admission is conclusive for purposes of the present case. Further it is contended that Shri Chiranji Lal stated on 26. 9. 55 that on 10. 9. 55 Shri Manak Lal was not present. If some other lawyer had been appearing for the defendant in those days in these proceedings Shri Chiranji Lal would have named that lawyer and not Shri Manak Hal as the lawyer who was not present on 10. 9. 55 according to his allegation. Lastly it is argued that these facts go to show that Shri Manak Lal was appearing for the defendant and he could not have done so without filing his Vakalatnama. It is pointed out that before the trial court it was not alleged by the defendant that Shri Manak Lal was not appearing for him and that it was in the memorandum of appeal for the first time that it was alleged by the defendant that Shri Manak Lal was not appearing for him. It is suggested that Shri Mank Lal's Vakalatnama might have been removed deliberately from the file before it was sent to the appellate court.