JAGRUP RAM KASAUNDHAN Vs. KASHI PRASAD GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order of the Additional Munsif of Gorakhpur, dated 8 March 1933, in a suit by the applicant against the opposite party. The suit arises out of an arbitration award. On. 25 April 1929, defendants 1 to 3, in the suit, executed a promissory note in. favour of defendant 4. On 19th December 1931, defendant 4 transferred the promissory note to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought the suit on the basis of the proraissory note against defendants 1 to 3, and he also impleaded defendant 4.

(2.) Defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiff agreed to have the question in dispute between them settled by arbitration. An arbitrator was appointed by the Court who heard evidence and arguments on behalf of the parties and finally issued an award in favour of defendants 1 to 3. As a result of this award the learned Munsif passed the order against which this application is preferred. The order is in these terms: It is therefore held that the award is valid so far as it adjudicates matters between the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3. As there was no reference by plaintiff and defendant 4, so the matters between them could not be decided by arbitrator. The Court will fix a date for final disposal of the case between plaintiff and defendant i.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant has invited us to set aside this order upon the following grounds, viz. : (1) that the reference to arbitration is invalid inasmuch as defendant 4 was not a consenting party thereto, (2) the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct inasmuch as he did not disclose to the party the fact that he was indebted to the father-in-law of defendant 1. In support of his contention that the reference to arbitration was invalid because of the non-concurrence therein of defendant 4, he has referred us to three decisions of this Court in Gopal Das V/s. Baij Nath , Tej Singh V/s. Ghasi Ram and Abudar Beg V/s. Nathumal . He has contended that upon the basis of these decisions the reference in the present case is invalid, because all parties who were interested in the suit within the meaning of para. 1, Schedule 2, Civil P.C., had not agreed to the arbitration. Para. 1 is in the following terms: Where in any suit all the parties interested agree that any matter in difference between thorn shall be referred to arbitration, they may, at any time before judgment is pronounced apply to the Court for an order of reference.