SHYAM SUNDER Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the decision of Bapna J. dated 13th March, 1959, sitting single. It arises out of a proceeding for arbitration.

(2.) THE appellant Shyam Sunder and the respondents Sitaram, Ganga Bishan, and Bal-Krishna were parties to an agreement dated 3rd November, 1948, for reference of the matter in dispute between them to the arbitration of one Mr. H. P. Bagehi, an advocate of Agra. THE arbitrator gave bis award on 18th June, 1952. Bal Krishna, one of the parties to the agreement, then applied to the District Judge of Merta on 17th September, 1952, for an order on the arbitrator to file his award, together with any depositions and documents which may have been presented and proved before him and to take further proceedings according to law in order to pass a decree on the basis of the award. THE court passed an order on the arbitrator to file his award and in pursuance of that order, the award was filed by the advocate for the arbitrator on the 27th of March, 1953. On receipt of the award the court ordered that the parties to the reference may be informed of the fact of the award having been filed, asking them to present their objections, if any. THE notice so directed to be issued by the court was served on the appellant Shyam Sunder on the 3rd of June, 1953 and he filed his objections on the 18th of July, 1953. Respondent Balkrihsna pleaded that the objections filed by the appellant were time-barred under Article 158 of the Limitation Act and as such should be rejected. THE plea was upheld by the learned District Judge, who rejected the objections on the ground of limitation and proceeded to pass a decree in accordance with the award on 14th of March, 1955. An appeal was then presented under sec. 30 of the Arbitration Act against the order of the District Judge, refusing to set aside the award and rejecting his objections on the point of limitation. THE learned Judge in his judgment under appeal affirmed the decision of the learned District Judge and dismissed the same with costs. THE appellant has, therefore, preferred this appeal against that decision under sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance.