CHIDDU Vs. KUNWAR SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the parties to the suit put in a joint application stating that they had agreed that the case should be decided according to what a certain person named Sobha Ram should state on oath. The learned Munsif accordingly issued a summons to Sobha Ram. When he appeared, the plaintiffs, who are appellants here, made certain allegations of collusion against Sobha Ram and asked to be allowed to withdraw from the reference. The learned Munsif refused to allow them to withdraw, and as Sobha Ram stated that the plaintiffs had not been in possession of the land in dispute for 16 years, and that the defendants had been in possession, he dismissed the suit. The decision of the Munsif was affirmed on appeal by the learned Additional Judge of Aligarh. The plaintiffs come here in second appeal. IN my judgment the Court below was right. IN my opinion when a party to a suit has made a reference of this kind, whether it be considered to be a reference to arbitration or a reference to the oath of a witness, such as is referred to in Section 9 of the INdian Oaths Act, 1873, he should not be allowed arbitrarily to withdraw from the reference. IN this case the plaintiffs produced no evidence whatever to support their allegation that the referee had colluded with the opposite party. I agree with what was said by Stuart, C.J., in Lekhraj Singh v. Dulhma Kuar (1880) I.L.R., 4 All., 302. I would also refer to what is said in the case of Ram Narain Singh V/s. Babu Singh (1895) I.L.R., 18 All., 46, at p. 49. For the above reasons I am of opinion that this appeal must fail and I dismiss it with costs.