L PEAREY LAL Vs. MAHESH CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first appeal from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, dated the 4 of November 1932. The order is in the following terms: The award, dated 29 of September 1931 shall be filed and a decree shall be framed according to the award. The award shall form part of the decree. The plaintiffs shall get their costs from the defendant.

(2.) Lala Laeq Chand, plaintiff 1, was the Government Treasurer, in the district of Aligarh. Plaintiff 2, Lala Gulab Chand is a brother of Laeq Chand. Plaintiff 3, Lala Krishen Kunwar, a minor is anooher brother of Laeq Chand. The defendant Lala Pearey Lal is the agent of Lala Laeq Chand. He acted as agent to Lila Phul Chand who died in 1929. He has acted since 1929 as agent to Lala Liaq Chand, Lala Phul Chand was the Government Treasurer in the district Aligarh. Lila Laeq Chand succeeded his father as Treasurer in 1929. The Treasurer appoints tahsildars who, in various tahsils in the district of Aligarh, received dues on behalf of the Government Treasury. The defendant supervised the tahsildars and also acted as agent for Lxla Phul Chand and Lala Lieq Chand in connection with their private affairs the collection of rents and so forth. In the year 1931 there was a dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendant on the question as to how much was due by the defendant to the plaintiffs on an accounting. The dispute was referred to arbitration and the learned District Judge appointed Rai Bahadur Babu Sohan Lal pleader in Aligarh as arbitrator. In the words of the arbitrator's award the dispute between the parties was in respect of some matters relating to the Aligarh treasuries and other private affairs. The arbitrator having heard evidence and arguments on behalf of both parties issued his award on 22 September, 1931. In this award he found on an accounting Rs. 16,953-6-3 due by the defendant to the plaintiffs. The defendant refused to obtemper this award thereupon the plaintiff applied in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge of Aligarh for the preparation of a decree embodying the award. The learned Subordinate Judge after hearing arguments of parties ordered the preparation of the decree embodying the arbitrator's award. This is the order against which the defendant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the order of the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that the award which to be embodied in the decree is invalid for certain reasons. He contends that the award is invalid under Rule 14, Schedule 2, Civil P.C. and that the award should be set aside. In support of this contention learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the fact that in the course of the award the learned arbitrator has found a sum of Rs. 4,000 due to the plaintiffs by the defendant. It appears clear to us from a consideration of the record that this sum of Rs. 4,000 which is alleged to be due under certain promissory notes and hundies is connected with the transactions between the defendant and the plaintiff's firm Man Singh Jawahar Lai. Dealing with the accounts between the defendant and the plaintiff's firm, the arbitrator in the course of his award states: I find that Lala Pearey Lal, second party, is not responsible for rendition of the account relating to the firm Man Singh Jawahar Lal or the firm in Sarai Khirni and no amount is due by him in respect of both the firms aforesaid. After this decision there is no need of recording a finding on Issue 5 which relates to the fact that the amounts of the said firm are barred by limitation.