SHYAM SUNDER Vs. SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under sec. 39 (1) (vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

(2.) THE appellant Shyam Sunder and the respondents Sitaram, Saligram, Ganga Bishan, and Balkishan referred their dispute to the arbitration of Mr. H. P. Bagchi, Advocate, Agra, by an agreement dated 3rd November, 1948. THE arbitrator gave his award on 18th June, 1952. One of the parties to the agreement, namely, Bal Kishan, made an application to the District judge, Merta, on 17th September, 1952, for an order to the arbitrator to file his award together with any depositions and documents which may have been presented and proved before him, and that thereafter further proceedings be taken according to law. Notice was issued of this application to the other parties to the agreement, but later on it was found that this was really not necessary, and an order was made to the arbitrator to file his award. THE award was filed by Mr. Verma, Advocate, for the Arbitrator, on 27th March, 1953. THE court passed an order on that date to inform the parties to the reference of the fact of the award having been filed with a direction that the parties may file any objection, if they so chose to do. THE aforesaid notice was served on Shyam Sunder on 3rd June, 1953. Shyam Sunder filed his objections on 18th July, 1953 An objection was taken by Bal Kishan on 6th November, 1954, that this objection was filed by Shyam Sunder beyond the period of limitation provided under Article 158 of the Limitation Act, and, therefore, should be rejected. THE learned District Judge upheld this plea, and rejected the objection as being barred by time. He pronounced judgment in accordance with the award on 14th March, 1955. THE present appeal has been filed against the order of the District Judge refusing to set aside the award, inasmuch as the objections raised by the appellant were rejected.

(3.) IN the present case, the objections, which were filed on 18th July 1953, by Shyam Sunder, were to the merits of the award, and not one single objection refers to the omission of the arbitrator to file the depositions and documents or the handicap under which Shyam Sunder may have been working in laying before the court his complete objections. On the facts of this case. I am of opinion that the omission to file the depositions and documents along with the award was only a minor irregularity, and not that kind of irregularity which would make the filing of the award by the arbitrator on 27th March, 1953, as of no consequence. It may be mentioned that the filing of the documents has been directed under that law for the purpose of letting the court in possession of full facts, and not for the purpose of filing any objections by any of the parties to the reference. This becomes clear by reference to sec. 17 of the Arbitration Act, which is as follows : - "where the Court sees no cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award, the Court shall, after the time for making an application to set aside the award, has expired or such application having been made, after refusing it, proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award, and upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow and no appeal shall lie from such decree except on the ground that it is in excess of, or not otherwise in accordance with, the award". This section casts a duty on the court to see for itself whether there is any cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration, or to set aside the award, and then to proceed in the particular manner mentioned in the section. One of the purposes for submission of the depositions and documents may be that the Court may be able to see whether there is any reason for remitting or setting aside the award, irrespective of the fact that any party may or may not file any objections. The court is not bound by any rule of limitation in exercising its own powers of the perusal of the award or the remission thereof or setting aside the same. I am, therefore, of opinion that on the facts made out in the present case, the omission to file the depositions and documents was merely an irregularity and the notice which was issued by the Court was in terms of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 14 of the Act. IN the circumstances of the case, no prejudice has been proved to have been caused to the appellant. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the court below.