RAM PRASAD GHASI RAM Vs. BAL KRISHEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the defendant. It appears that on 28th February 1935 the plaintiffs and the defendant referred certain matters which were in dispute between them to arbitration without the intervention of Court. The arbitrators made their award on 5 March 1935. The plaintiffs then applied to the Court having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the award that the award be filed in Court. The application was numbered and registered as a suit and notice was given to the defendant requiring him to show cause why the award should not be filed. The defendant appeared and, filed objections. The learned Munsif framed three issues: (1) Was any agreement to refer to arbitration entered into between the parties? (2) Is the award invalid on account of the misconduct of the arbitrator? (3) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

(2.) He decided issues 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs, but upon a legal point raised by the defendant he was of the opinion that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief claimed by them. The point of law raised by the defendant was that if the award is filed, the provisions of Section 321, Municipalities Act would be violated, and the learned Munsif was of the view that Section 321, Municipalities Act, was a bar to the filing of the award. At this stage it is necessary to mention certain proceedings which were going on about this time before the Municipal Board. On 10 October 1934 the defendant had applied to the Municipal Board of Farrukhabad for permission to build a latrine on a certain strip of land. On 30th April 1935 sanction was given by the Municipal Board for the construction but with certain modifications. It appears that objection had been taken by the defendant to the application of the plaintiffs, but before sanction could be given, the parties, namely the plaintiffs and the defendant, referred their disputes (one of such disputes related to the building of the latrine) to arbitration, and I have already discussed the result of the reference to arbitration.

(3.) What the learned Munsif thought and what learned Counsel for the defendant applicant has argued before me is that the sanction which has been given by the Municipal Board to the defendant for the construction of the latrine differs in certain particulars from the sanction which has been given by the arbitrators for the building of the latrine, and it is said that the plaintiffs did appeal against the sanction given by the Municipal Board on 30 April 1935 and the District Magistrate rejected the appeal confirming the sanction as was originally granted by the Municipal Board. It is said that if the award is made a rule of Court, it would override the sanction granted by the Municipal Board.