GAYAN SINGH Vs. HARBILAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hakim Gayan Singh had instituted a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Agra for rendition of accounts on a dissolution of partnership. The suit was directed against Lala Harbilas and three other defendants. The matter was referred to arbitration and an award was given on 27 July 1927. We do not know when this award was filed in Court; and notwithstanding our pressing for this information we have not been able to elicit the exact date when the award was filed. The Court, however, without waiting for the ten days within which an objection could be preferred to the award, made the award a rule of the Court on 29 July 1927. An appeal was preferred. The lower appellate Court set aside the decree passed on the award and remanded the case to the trial Court with the direction that notice of the award should be given to the appellant and an opportunity given to him to file an objection to the award if he were so advised, within the period of limitation prescribed by Art. 158, Lim. Act.

(2.) On 17 March 1928, the trial Court made an order in express terms: that the parties are to file objections, if any, to the award within the period prescribed by law and the case be put up for orders on 30 March, 1928.

(3.) This order was communicated to the pleaders of the parties concerned and their initials were obtained on the order-sheet. No objection was filed to the award till 28 March 1928. Admittedly the objections were filed beyond the time prescribed by Art. 158. The plaintiff, however, prayed for the period of limitation being extended in his favour under Section 5, Lim. Act, upon the ground that his son had mysteriously disappeared from home and that he was away from his house in search of his son for a number of days and did not return till the evening of 27 March 1928. He prayed that this period should be deducted. The Court below very properly refused to accede to this request. It was not within the desecration of the Court to enlarge the time prescribed by Art. 158 by invoking the aid of Section 5. It held that the objections were filed beyond ten days prescribed by law, overruled the objection and made the award a rule of the Court.