BALUMAL Vs. J P CHANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALUMAL and Suresh Kumar have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution challenging the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jodhpur, dated 1st of May, 1972, whereby a preliminary objection of the petitioners to challenge the jurisdiction of that Court to entertain the prayer of the arbitrators to make their award the rule of the Court was rejected.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this litigation are, in a nutshell, as follows: petitioners entered into a partnership agreement with respondent No. 3 dr. Khetlakhani in an agricultural pursuit and it is alleged that as a result of that partnership certain lands in village Manaklao were purchased by the partners and some machinery, including the pumping set, was installed on the well in the said lands. The partners also took loan from the bank and made certain constructions on the lands for the purpose of carrying on their agricultural operations. After some time, serious controversies arose between the partners, and the dispute arising amongst them was referred to three arbitrators, namely. Shri J. P. Chandani, Swami Chandangir and Shri Daulatram. Reference was, however, made to the arbitrators out of Court. It is alleged that out of the three arbitrators only two arbitrators proceeded to resolve the dispute and an award was given by them which was submitted in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jodhpur under Section 31 of the arbitration Act of 1940, to make the award a rule of the Court. The petitioners raised a preliminary objection that the revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain any application made by the arbitrators to pass a decree on the basis of the award as, according to the petitioners, such proceedings can be entertained only by the Civil Court and not by a revenue Court. This preliminary objection was disposed of by the learned sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 1st of May. 1972. The learned sub-Divisional Officer was of the view that as the dispute related to the agricultural lands the revenue Court had jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 31 of the Arbitration Act. This order of the sub-Divisional Officer has been impugned by the petitioners, mainly, on the ground that if an award is given by the arbitrators on a reference made privately by the parties, then it is only the Civil Court that can pass a decree on the basis of such an award. The revenue Court, according to the petitioners, has no jurisdiction to entertain any such application filed under Section 31 of the Act.

(3.) MR. Lekh Raj, appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, contested this petition and the ground advanced by him is that for the purpose of deciding an application under Section 31 of the Arbitration Act the revenue Court should be treated as a Civil Court and in support of this argument he placed reliance on rajah Nilmoni Singh Deo Bahadoor v. Taranath Mookerjee, (1881-82) 9 Ind App 174 (PC); Narayan Nagappa Hegde v. Shankar Narasimha Bhatta. AIR 1966 Mys 5 and Rajah of Venkatagiri v. Shaik Mahaboob Saheb, AIR 1944 Mad 139. Mr. Bhargava appearing on behalf of the petitioners, on the other hand, cited Bithal das Khanna v. Shri Nath Das Khanna, AIR 1949 All 360; M. I. Shahdad v. Mohd. Abdullah Mir, AIR 1967 J and K 120; Jai Singh v. Mangtoo. AIR 1962 Him Pra 10 and manshoor Ullah v. Bashir Uddin. 1962 All LJ 918 to canvass the point that the revenue Court cannot take any proceedings under the Arbitration Act unless the dispute is referred to arbitration under Section 69 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue act of 1956, and since this dispute was referred to the arbitration by a private understanding between the partners, the award if at all it is a valid award, cannot be made the rule of the Court by a revenue Court.