SAVARALA VENKATASUBBIAH Vs. KUMARA RAMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is against an arbitrator's award to which objection was made in the lower Court but which was confirmed the plaintiff in O.S. No. 35 of 1929 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Madanapalle brought a suit against the defendant on three items : (1) for 12 measures of paddy delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant's brother in law, the defendant having promised to pay for the same ; (2) for a debt of Rs. 86-11-0 due by the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of tamarind and sugar candy trade with regard to which the defendant executed a letter dated 25 August 1927; and (3) for three measures of Koru paddy cultivated in the manyam land of the plaintiff. The matter was referred to arbitrators who awarded the full sum to the plaintiff. Objections to the award wore put in but were disallowed.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised that there is no power of revision in this Court in cases where the lower Court has confirmed the decision of the arbitrators and in support the well-known Privy Council case Ghulam Khan V/s. Muhammad Hassan (1902) 29 Cal. 167, is quoted. At first sight this seems to be a very strong case. The question of jurisdiction of the Court had been raised there as an issue but was referred with the rest of the suit to the arbitrators. The arbitrators having found wrongly on this point that the Court had jurisdiction, the Court accepted the award. It was held that as the arbitrators had jurisdiction to decide the law wrongly and the Court accepted the award, it could not be challenged in revision. But, if that case is looked into closely, it will be seen that the arbitrator's action had not fallen under any of the clauses of Rule 15, Schedule 2, Civil P.C. Therefore the Court was bound to accept the award and did not act either without jurisdiction or with material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction by doing so. This case has been considered in this connexion in Debir-ud-din v. Amina Bibi 1925 Cal. 475, where it was held. it cannot be laid down as a general rule that in no case in which an award has been filed and decree passed in accordance therewith can the High Court interfere under Section 115, Civil P.C. Revision is permissible in cases in which the arbitrators or the Court may have exceeded theiri jurisdiction or acted with material irregularity in the conduct oil the proceedings,

(3.) Similarly it was held though the remark was obiter in Rajagopala V/s. Rangaswami 1916 Mad 969, with reference to the same: There is no appeal against a decree based upon an award, but if it can be shown that the lower Court acted without jurisdiction or acted with material irregularity in dealing with the award, it would be open to the High Court on a proper case being made out to revise such an order.