KODALI RAMAKOTESWARA RAO Vs. KODALI SURYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the trial of O.S. No. 462 of 1937 on the file of the District Munsif s, Court of Ellore, the matter in dispute was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator was given full power to examine or not to examine witnesses and after he had given his decision largely in favour of the respondents, the matter came before the District Munsif for hearing objections. A number of points were raised which were all decided against the petitioner. The two objections that are reasserted in this revision petition are (1) that the award was void because the first respondent was a minor (an award not binding a minor) and (2) that the arbitrator acted improperly in examining the plaintiff's next friend in the absence of the first defendant.

(2.) There is nothing in the first point; because an arbitration to which a minor is a party, is not in itself void; but is voidable at the instance of the minor. The minor in the present case (or rather his next friend), far from attempting to set aside the award, supports it. It is not open to the first defendant, who is a major, to have an award which was made at his instance set aside, merely on the ground that the first respondent was a minor.

(3.) The main complaint in this petition is that the respondents - the next friend of the plaintiff and the second defendant - were examined in the absence of the first defendant. These persons are parties to the suit; and I can see no principle of equity or justice which requires the examination of a party in the presence of all the other parties. It is clearly necessary for an arbitrator to enquire of the parties what their case is and on what basis they found their claims. I can see no reason why, in making these enquiries, it is necessary for the other parties to be present. It is otherwise of course with regard to the examination of other persons, whose testimony might be impugned for some reason or other.