MANNI LAL Vs. PAHLAD DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by one Manni Lal for revision of an order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Banda in a case under para. 17, Schedule 2, Civil P.C. The case hag a long history behind it and it is necessary to state the circumstances which led to the present application for revision. The opposite party Pahlad Das sold certain zamindari property to Manni Lal under a sale deed for an ostensible consideration of Rupees 10,000 as far back as 13 December 1923. When Manni Lal applied to the Revenue Court for mutation of names, objection was taken by Pahlad Das to the sale being given effect to. The revenue Court refused mutation and Manni Lal insisted on tha price being refunded to him. Pahlad Das disputed Manni Lal's right to a refund of the price. The dispute between tha parties was referred by them to the arbitration of five persons including one Raja Ram. The agreement was embodied in a formal document dated 22 March, 1930. Manni Lal applied to the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Banda under para. 17, Schedule 2, Civil P.C., for an order that the agreement of reference be filed. Pahlad Das objected to the application being granted, inter alia, on the ground that Raja Ram, one of the five arbitrators, was a relation of Manni Lal, a fact which had been concealed from him. Parties compromised the differences that were in existence at that stage by modifying the previous agreement of reference so far as the personnel of the arbitrator was concerned. They agreed to make Drigbijai Singh the sole arbitrator in the case. This was done on 15 October 1930 when the Court made an order of reference to Drigbijai Singh. It is clear that Drigbijai Singh had been previously consulted by the parties and was present in Court when the order of reference was recorded.

(2.) The Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge which was only a temporary Court was abolished soon afterwards and the case was consigned to the record room. Drigbijai Singh made an award within a reasonable time, but apparently because the Court which had made the order of reference had ceased to exist he did not file it in any Court. The award adjudged Pahlad Das to be liable to refund Rupees 4,000. laced with the difficulty that the Court through whose intervention the reference had been made had ceased to exist, Manni Lal applied to the Court of the Munsif of Banda under para. 20, Schedule 2, Civil P.C., for an order that the award be made a rule of the Court. The Munsif's Court was apparently chosen because the arbitrator had awarded Rs. 4,000 to Manni Lal which was within the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Munsif of Banda. Manni Lal's application was, however, dismissed by the Munsif on the ground that the reference having been made by a Court, para. 20, Schedule 2, Civil P.C., was inapplicable. Accordingly Manni Lal's application was returned for presentation to the proper Court. Manni Lal felt the difficulty of deciding for himself as to which of the civil Courts of the Banda district was the proper Court. He made an application to the Subordinate Judge for review of a certain order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge. It is not clear which particular order was sought to be reviewed, but in view of the order of the Subordinate Judge it is not necessary to make any further comment on that aspect of the application. The Subordinate Judge ruled that as the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge had ceased to exist, no application for review was maintainable. Manni Lal applied a second time for the matter being reopened but without success. Finally he moved the District Judge and asked for an order directing his case under para. 17 being re-opened and the same being transferred to the Subordinate Judge.

(3.) The District Judge acceded to this request and directed the Subordinate Judge to take seisin of the case. An appeal from the order of the District Judge preferred by Pahlad Das was infractions. In the meantime the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge was re-established at Banda and the case was eventually transferred to his Court. When he took up the case the position was that Drigbijai Singh had made an award but had not filed it in Court in the circumstances already stated. The first action taken in the case was an application by Pahlad Das objecting to a fresh reference being made to Drigbijai Singh to arbitrate. Apparently it was contemplated by the Court that the first reference made to Brigbijai Singh be ignored and a fresh reference be made to him and he be required to make an award in pursuance thereof. Prom what has been discussed before us we think that the difficulty which was felt by the Court was that the first order of reference, though recorded by the Court, was riot communicated to the arbitrator. It was doubted as to whether the arbitrator would have jurisdiction to make an award in the absence of an. order of reference being served upon him. It was therefore considered to be. necessary that a fresh reference be made to the arbitrator and the Court's order served upon him. Pahlad Das took objection to this procedure mainly on the ground that the arbitrator, having already made an award, has expressed an opinion on the merits and if a fresh reference were made he was not likely to give a different award. Incidentally he impeached the impartiality of the arbitrator. The principal question which the Additional Subordinate Judge was called upon to decide was whether a fresh reference should be made to the arbitrator or whether, as Pahlad Das desired, the arbitration should be revoked. The learned Judge accepted the contention of Pahlad Das to the effect that the arbitrator was not likely to bring an impartial mind to bear upon the case. The learned Judge went on to make some remarks as regards the arbitrator's conduct in making his award. In the end he held that a case existed for the Court revoking the reference to the arbitrator. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge was of opinion that he could revoke a reference to arbitration in the exercise of his inherent power under Section 151, Civil P.C. The present application for revision impugns the legality of this order and the question which we have to decide-is whether the lower Court was justified in revoking the reference to arbitration.