LAWS(RAJ)-1978-4-11

DEVENDRA SINGH Vs. KALYAN SINGH

Decided On April 28, 1978
DEVENDRA SINGH Appellant
V/S
KALYAN SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's revision application directed against the order dated 11th of August, 1976 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Jodhpur whereby he dismissed the application of the defendant-petitioner for declaring the award passed in Civil Original Suit No. 125/1976 as nullity.

(2.) THE material facts relevant for the disposal of this revision application, briefly stated, are as follows:-An application was moved by one Shri Kalusingh son of Shri Mukan singh Bhati claiming to be the Arbitrator under Section 14 (2) of the indian Arbitration Act, 1940 for filing the award given by him on 20th of May, 1973 in a dispute between the defendant-petitioner and the plaintiff-non-petitioner, praying therein for making the award the rule of the court. The notices were issued to the concerned parties in regard to the filing of the award which were duly served upon the concerned parties for the date of hearing on 2-9-1973. Thereupon, the defendant-petitioner moved an application purporting to be under section 33 of the Act. The application was, inter alia, based On the grounds that the said award was vitiated, as it was passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner of being heard, that the arbitrator had mis-conducted himself, as he was an intimate friend of the non-petitioner and was, therefore, partial to the non-petitioner; and that there was no valid arbitration agreement in existence referring the dispute to Shri Kalusingh, the alleged arbitrator. It was on these grounds that the defendant petitioner prayed that the award dated 20th of May, 1973 has no legal sanctity and does not exist in the eye of law and it should be declared accordingly. The plaintiff non-petitioner contested this application, amongst others, mainly on the grounds that the application was barred by time, as the same was presented beyond 30 days of the passing of the award.

(3.) IN order to consider the point germane to the controversy, it would be appropriate to make mention of Sections 30, 31 and 33 of the Act. They read as under:-