OMPRAKASH Vs. GAURISHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) OMPRAKASH and others have filed this application for revision against the order of District Judge, Ganganagar dated December 7, 1981 by which an award made by the arbitrator was remitted to him for reconsideration The short facts giving rise to this revision are that there was a partnership firm of the parties. Some disputes arose in connection with the working of that firm and the partners appointed Shri Babulal Kothari and Shri Sushil Beyani as arbitrators. The arbitrators after hearing the parties filed their award in the court of the learned District Judge on August 19, 1980 after notice to the parties. The present non -pititioners raised certain objections to the award and urged that the award may not be made the rule of the court but should be set aside or remitted for reconsideration. At the time of hearing of these objections only one objection was pressed by them and that was to the effect that according to the submission (reference to arbiration) dated January 12, 1980 the arbitrators were required to completely dissolve and wind up the firm, discharge the liability and then to distribute the assets between the partners but instead of doing this the arbitrators directed that all the assets of the firm except a Nohara shall be retained by the nonpetitioners and the liabilities of the firm shall also be paid by them and that the other party would be paid a fixed amount named by the arbitrators and thus they have exceeded their jurisdiction and, therefore the award cannot be made a rule of the court. After hearing the parties the learned District Judge accepted this objection and remitted the award as stated above, by his order dated December 17, 1981. Omprakash and others have come up in revision against that order.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record,

(3.) IN my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case this preliminary objection need not detain us because on a consideration of the merits of the order sought to be challenged in this revision I am of the opinion that this order does tend to decide or at least affect the controversy between the parties about the disposal of the assets and liabilities of the firm and, therefore, if amounts to a case decided even according to the authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel for the non -petitioners himself. The further question of course is whether this court should interfere with or reverse or modify this order in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in view of the conditions laid down by Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso added to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and for that purpose a consideration of the merits of the order would be necessary.