PENDYALA SUBBA RAO Vs. LINGAMALLU RAMALINGAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case there was a reference to arbitration on February 27, 1932. The award dated March 23, 1932, was filed on March 31, 1932, and on the same day a decree was passed in terms of the award. It would appear that the plaintiff reported that he had no objections but at the outset the defendant raised various objections. The Court found it necessary to consider objection No. 4 only where it is stated that the arbitrator has given his award in favour of the plaintiff without examining the plaintiff's witnesses or his account books. From the fact that it is called objection No. 4 it may be inferred that the defendant put in written objections. The objection was dismissed. This petition is on two grounds: (1) that the learned District Munsif did not give time to the defendant to substantiate his objections nor did he deal with them judicially; and (2) that in any case the decree passed within ten days after the award was filed-- which is the period under Art. 158 of the Limitation Act for putting in objections--is invalid. On the first contention I think it is clear that the petitioner must succeed. There is nothing in the record to suggest that he was given a chance of proving his objection by evidence. The District Munsif proceeds to dispose of it in the following words: This is a wide and sweeping objection and is unsupported by facts The arbitrator has stated in that award that his findings were arrived at after hearing both the parties and considering all evidence placed before me. The arbitrator is a Pleader of fairly good standing and I do not see why his statement of what transpired before him should not be accepted. From his award, it is clear that he heard the parties and their evidence and gave his award. Such an award could not be said to have been vitiated by any misconduct.

(2.) There is not a word about the evidence nor does he say that the defendant has either failed to adduce evidence or that his evidence was found to be insufficient to establish his objection.

(3.) The view of the Court, as I take it, appears to be that the arbitrator's award is final not only as regards the award itself but also as regards any statement which he makes in it as to the conduct of the proceedings. From that point of view the petition must succeed.