ANAND DAS Vs. RAMBHUSHAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this case was the defendant in an action brought by the plaintiff who claimed to be the chela of the defendant. It is quite unnecessary to state the facts of the litigation except in so far as they are relevant to this appeal which is an appeal against the order by the Subordinate Judge superseding an arbitration in the action. The action was commenced in September 1932 and on 6 January 1933, on a petition filed by the parties to the suit, the matter was referred to arbitration by the Subordinate Judge. The learned Judge by his order which is the subject matter of the appeal purports to have acted under para. 8, Schedule 2, Civil P.C., and it is contended by Mr. P.R. Das, who appears on behalf of the defendant appellant, that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to make the order as it is contended that he based his decision not on matters which properly arose under para. 8, Schedule 2, but on certain allegations made by the parties as to the alleged misconduct of some of the arbitrators.

(2.) It is argued that the only jurisdiction to supersede an award is under paras. 5, 8 and 15, Schedule 2, and that the matter in question came under neither one of those paragraphs. The only question for this Court to determine is whether in the circumstances of the case it could be said that the learned Subordinate Judge had exercised the discretion which is obviously given him under para. 8, Schedule 2, in a manner which could be described as unjudicial. It is necessary to note one or two facts relating to the circumstances of the arbitration in order to determine that question.

(3.) The order of reference, as I have stated, was made on 6 January 1933, and this appears to have been received by the five Panches, who had been appointed on 13 January 1933. Nothing seems to have been done until the 17 January when the order sheet of the Panches discloses the fact that one of the arbitrators, Mahant Mahabir Das, had died, and as the terms of reference between the parties made provision for an event of that kind, in due course another arbitrator was appointed and his appointment confirmed by the Court on 2 February, 1933.