VALCHAND DIPCHAND Vs. GULBA LAXMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case one Gulba valad Laxman filed a suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Shirpur in the District of Khandesh against one Valchand Dipchand to recover the price of cotton sold to him. After issues were framed the matter was referred to Mr. Jinsiwale, pleader, as arbitrator, who, after recording evidence, submitted his award, directing Valchand, the present petitioner, to pay Rs. 986 with proportionate costs and future interest. A decree was passed in terms of the award and the defendant now asks this Court to interfere in revision on the ground that no notice was given of the filing of the award as required by paragraph 10 of the second schedule of the Civil Procedure Code. Under paragraph 10: Where as award in a suit has been made the parsons who made it shall sign it and cause it to be filed in Court, together with any deposition and document which have been taken and proved before them; and no notice of the filing shall be given to the parties.

(2.) It is quite clear that when the arbitrator himself brings in the award to the Court, the Court is bound to give notice to the parties that the award has been filed, and the Court cannot possibly pass a decree in terms of the award unless such notice has been given. A report was called for with regard to the circumstances in which the decree was passed. The Subordinate Judge reported: No notice was issued to or served upon the applicant Valchand Dipchand. But the rojnama in the case. (O. Suit No. 393 of 1922 of this Court) shows that the pleaders on either side were present and in their presence the case was set down for filing of objections, if any, to a date eleven days thereafter. The roziama read: Date, November 30, 1923, Pleaders for parties present. Award from the arbitrator Case adjourned for giving objections of the award to December 11, 1923.

(3.) It would appear then that the award was brought into Court by the parties themselves or their pleaders, and it is not certain even whether the arbitrator himself was present. If the parties or their pleaders bring in an award and ask that it should be filed, and the Court informs the pleaders or the parties that they should file objections within the time provided by the Indian Limitation Act, namely, ten days, then it seems to me everything that is required by the law has been done. Then it cannot be said that because after giving notice to the parties, or to their pleaders if the parties are not present, and the Court does not issue further notice to the parties a material irregularity has been committed which entitles this Court to set aside the whole of the proceedings. We have been referred to the decisions in Rangasami V/s. Muthusami [1887] 11 Mad. 144 and Chatarbhuj V/s. Ganesh Ram [1898] 20 All. 474. But in both those cases there was no proof that any notice had been given to the parties or their pleaders that the award would be filed. Therefore, with due respect, the Courts were right in holding that there had been a material irregularity.