NANHELAL ANANDILAL JAIN AND ANOTHER Vs. SINGHAI GULABCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A dispute between the parties was referred to arbitration without the intervention of a Court and the arbitrators gave an award directing the defendants to pay Rs. 419-9-0 to the plaintiff. Subsequently the plaintiff brought a suit in the Small Cause Court to enforce this award and he has been, given a decree for Rs. 419-9-0 and costs. The first contention of the defendants in this Court is that the plaintiff had no right to bring a suit to enforce the award and that his only remedy was to get the award filed in, accordance with Section 14, Arbitration Act. Arbitration in suits was formerly regulated by Schedule 2, Civil P.C., which has now been repealed by Act 10 of 1940, and under paragraph 20 of that schedule it was open to any person interested in an award to apply to the Court that the award be filed in Court. It was however beyond dispute that it was also open to a person interested in an award to sue for the enforcement of an award, and the form of the plaint in such a suit is given in Form No. 10 of Appendix A of Schedule 1, Civil P.C. It has been suggested that Section 32, Arbitration Act, (10 of 1940) takes away the right to sue for the enforcement of an award. That section bars a suit for a decision upon the existence, effect or validity of an arbitration or an award. It seems clear to me, ate is suggested by the marginal note, that this section bars suits challenging an award, but does not bar a suit to enforce an award. In the absence of any provision barring a suit to enforce such an award, the only possible conclusion must be that the right to bring such a suit has not been abolished.

(2.) THE only other contention in this Court is that the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court to entertain such a suit is barred by Section 40, Arbitration Act. That section provides that a Small Cause Court shall have no jurisdiction over any arbitration proceedings or over any application arising thereout. There is no question in the present case of any jurisdiction over any arbitration proceedings or over any application arising thereout. It is a simple suit to enforce an award and it has long been the general view that a Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to entertain such a suit: see Mitra's commentary on the Small Cause Courts Act, Edn. 7, pp. 144-145. There is no suggestion that that jurisdiction has4 been taken away. For these reasons, I hold that the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The application for revision is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 20.