RAM JIAWAN RAM Vs. KALI CHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for revision. The sole ground is that the decree is founded upon the award of arbitrators, and the applicant says that the application for submission to arbitration was not signed by him and that his pleader was not especially authorized in writing to make the application for reference. The facts appear to be as follows: The applicant and his son, one Mathura Ram, were plaintiffs in a suit in the Munsif's Court. They appeared by one pleader. The parties agreed to refer the questions in dispute to arbitration. The application to the Court to order the reference under Section 506 of the Civil P. C. was signed, by the son, Mathura Ram, in person, and the pleader signed on behalf of the present applicant. The vakalat-namah was in general terms. In my judgment it was not sufficient to authorize the pleader to make a valid application, for reference under Section 506. The order for reference was, however, made. The arbitrators entered on their arbitration and duly made their award. Objections were taken to the award on behalf of the plaintiffs which were overruled, but no objection was taken that the order for reference had been made without the pleader for Ram Jiawan being especially authorized in writing by Ram Jiawan. The Court of first instance held in favour of the award after due consideration of all points raised. The plaintiffs appealed. The ground on which this present application is based is absent from the grounds of appeal, and the question now argued and raised was only orally raised for the first time before the Subordinate Judge. It has been, found, and, I have not the smallest doubt, rightly found, that applicant knew all about the submission to arbitration and the award. He acquiesced in the submission to arbitration, and it was not until the defendants had gone to arbitration and the award was made that he attempted to raise the present question as to its validity. It is quite too late to do so now, and I have no hesitation whatever in refusing this application for revision. I wish, however, to say that in my opinion all Courts ought in all cases to be most careful that the provisions of Section 506 of the Civil P. C. are strictly complied with. It is the duty of the Court itself to see that the parties have signed the application for an order of reference themselves in person or that when the application is signed on their behalf by a pleader that pleader is expressly authorized in writing. A vakalat-namah in general terms is wholly insufficient.

(2.) I reject the application with costs.