NIRMAL KUMAR Vs. DHANNA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.10.1992 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') whereby the trial court set aside the award dated 24.4.1989 made by respondent No. 3 and remitted the matter to the Arbitrator respondent No. 3 for fresh decision after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. Aggrieved by the order impugned, appellant has preferred present appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act of 1940').

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned as well as record of the trial court.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that respondent Dhanna Ram was served with notice of filing of the award on 19.7.1989 as envisaged in Section 40(2) af the Act of 1940. Respondent No. 2 Murlidhar is real brother of respondent No. 1 Dhanna Ram and, therefore, he had knowledge of the award having been filed in the court ay the Arbitrator from the very day i.e. 19.7.1989. Respondents did not file any objection to award within the period of limitation as provided in Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (No. 36 of 1963), which is thirty days. He further contended that respondent Dhanna Ram filed an objection on 20.4.1991 much after expiry of period of thirty days of limitation and, therefore, the award could not have been set aside on the grounds raised in the objections filed by respondent No.1 Dhanna Ram. It is further contended that the trial court seriously erred in law in setting aside and remitting the award to the Arbitrator suo motu by invoking the provisions of Section 16 of the Act of 1940.