ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. BANWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision by Ashwani Kumar against the order of the District Judge, Sri Ganganagar dt. May 23, 1987 allowing certain amendments sought to be made by non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 in their application for setting aside the award filed on Feb. 19, 1985.

(2.) FACTS leading to the filing of this revision petition are that the petitioner and non- petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 had entered into an agreement dt. June 18, 1984 for settlement of dispute regarding properties specified in the agreement. Non-petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 were appointed arbitrators who gave their award on August 25,1984. The arbitrators moved an application under S.14(2) of the, Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, hereinafter, "the Act") before the District Judge Shri Ganganagar along with the award and prayed that the award may be made the rule of the Court. Notices of the filing of the award were served by the Court upon the petitioner as well as non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5. Non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 filed objections under S.30 of the Act for setting aside the award. These objections were filed by tern on Feb. 19, 1985. Subsequent to that non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 moved an application on Sept. 19, 1986 seeking certain amendments in their application for setting aside the award. Non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 wanted to add more objection for setting aside the award to the effect that in respect of the agricultural land covered by the award, a revenue suit was pending before the Assistant Collector, Sri Ganganagar and, therefore, without obtaining prior permission of that Court no award could have been passed in respects of the agricultural land and the award was liable to be set aside on this ground also. This amendment application was opposed on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that the same was belated. The District Judge, Sri Ganganagar, however, allowed the amendment application filed by the non-petitioners Nos 4 and 5 on the ground that for finally deciding the controversies between the parties effectively, the amendment deserved the allowed and moreover the same also did, not alter the nature of the objects. It is against this order allowing the amendments sought by the non-petitioners. Nos. 4 and 5 that petitioner Ashwani Kumar has filed this revision before this Court.

(3.) MR. Lekhraj Mehta has relied before me upon the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madan Lal v. Sunder Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1233, that of the Calcutta High Court in Haji Ebrahim Kasam Cochinwalla v. Northern Indian Oil Industries Ltd., AIR 1951 Cal 230 and that of the Patna High Court in Prabhat Kumar Lala v. Jagdish Chandra Narang, AIR 1968 Pat 399, to contend that no application to set aside an award can be considered by the court unless the objection for setting aside of the award are made within the period of limitation of 30 days which is provided as the limitation period by Art.119(b) of the Limitation Act of 1963 which corresponds to Art.158 of the Limitation Act of 1908 and that any ground subsequently added must be treated as a new application and such subsequent ground, if raised after the period of limitation of 30 days provided by Art.119(b) of the Limitation Act of 1963 would be barred by time. It was also argued that the District Judge Sri Ganganagar should not have allowed the amendment and permitted non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 to raise a new ground for setting aside the award after the period of limitation as a right had accrued to the petitioner by lapse of time. As against this MR. M.C. Bhandari on behalf of non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court in Union of India v. Binod Behari Singh, AIR 1967 Pat 144 and he contended that it is not a case where non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 had raised a new ground by any supplementary objections or during the course of arguments. On the other hand, it is a case where non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 had applied for amendment of their objection petition which was admittedly filed within limitation and the amendment petition was rightly allowed by the court for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.