GOPI CHAND Vs. GENDI LAL SURENDRA FINANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 39(i)(iv) of the Arbitration Act against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Ajmer in Civil case No, 60/71 (21 of 1972) setting -aside the award given by the arbitrator.

(2.) A suit was filed by the plaintiff -appellant against the respondents, in which an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was filed by the respondents. This application was accepted and the matter was referred to the arbitrator as mentioned in the hire purchase agreement. This application was accepted on 28 -3 -1962. It is not very relevant to, go into, the details that an appeal was filed by the appellant against this order in this court, which was rejected and the application to grant leave was also dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiff appellant filed a, claim with the arbitrator on 14 -2 -1971. The arbitrator passed the award on 19 -9 -1971 in favour of the plaintiff -appellant for Rs. 21,161.42p. and also awarded interest at rate of 6% P a. on the original amount of Rs. 19,660.55 p. which was the principal amount from 6 -1 -1960 till recovery of the amount. An application was made by the arbitrator for making the award rule of court, along with an application for condoning the delay. Notice was issued to the opposite parties inviting objections. The opposite party challenged the award on various grounds. The learned lower court, therefore, framed as many as 10 issues arising out of the objections. For the purpose of this appeal Issue Nos. 3(a) and (b), 4 and 5 are the only relevant issues. Issues No. 3 and 4 relate to point of limitation and issue No. 5 relates to awarding future interest.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite parties Shri J.P. Goyal and Shri J.K. Dhingara appearing for the respondents have supported the judgment of learned Additional District Judge and have urged that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, it is the duty of the court to take note of the point of limitation and decided the same, even though none of the parties may have raised this point before the court. It has, therefore, been contended that the learned lower court has committed no error in setting aside the award on the point of limitation.