LALA GOPAL RAM Vs. BANKEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties in this case referred a certain dispute pending in Court to the arbitration of a Pleader under a joint application dated the 8 of December 1924. An award was duly made on the 16 of January 1925, but on the objection of the plaintiffs it was remitted to the arbitrator for re-consideration with a direction to restrict it to the matters in suit. A fresh award was, therefore, made on the 19 of March 1925. It appears that an application was filed by the plaintiffs on the 7 of January 1925, asking leave to revoke the reference on the ground among others that the arbitrator was hard of hearing and unable to follow the evidence properly. A similar application was filed again on the 16 of March 1925, asking that the matter should not be referred to the arbitrator again, and suggesting that the arbitrator was not acting impartially. In the objections filed to the first award it was mentioned that the plaintiffs had sought to withdraw from the reference. THE Court below, however, refused to take that into consideration as a valid ground for setting aside the award. In the objections filed to the second award there was no reference to any such revocation. As pointed out by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Pestonjee Nussunvanjee V/s. Manockjee & Co. 12 M.I.A. 112 : 1 Ind. Jur. (N.S.) 69 : 2 Suth. P.C.J. 390 : 10 W.R. 51 : 20 E.R. 283 when parties have agreed to submit the matter in difference between them to the arbitration of one or more specific persons, no party to such an agreement can revoke the submission to arbitration unless for good cause and that a mere arbitrary revocation of the authority is not permitted. THE parties could not have been unaware, when they appointed the aforesaid Pleader as an arbitrator, that he was hard of hearing, if in fact he was hard of hearing, and there is nothing to show that the plaintiffs were in any way prejudiced by that fact or were justified in withdrawing from the reference in consequence. In Sultan Muhammad Khan v. Sheo Prasad 20 A. 145 : A.W.N. (1897) 227 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 454 and Perumalla Satyanarayana v Perumalla Venkata Rangayya 27 M. 112, the same principle was recognised. THEre is no reason in these circumstances for giving effect to the objection raised on behalf of the plaintiffs. THE award must be treated as a good and valid award inasmuch as no misconduct was established and the order about costs cannot be disturbed. THE application is dismissed.