LACHHMI PRASAD Vs. GOBARDHAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected civil revisions. They arise in the following way. On 13-2-1986 Gobardhan Das opposite party No. 1, filed an application in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Motihari praying that a certain award made on 29-1- 1946 was invalid and inoperative. The application purported to have been made under Section 83, Arbitration Act (Act 10 [X] of 1940). Under the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge a miscellaneous case No. 9 of 1946 was started and the number of the opposite party including the three arbitrators were ordered to be served with notice. Notice was served and the opposite party appeared. The arbitrators filed an affidavit in support of the award. On 3-8-1946 the applicant (opposite party No. 1 before this Court) put in a petition to the effect that he wanted to withdraw his application. On 5-8-1946 the Court allowed the prayer. The present petitioner requested the Court to make the award a rule of the Court and pass a decree thereon under Section 17, Arbitration Act; but this prayer was refused. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge passed his order finally in the miscellaneous case on 5-8-1946. The opposite party No. 1, Gobardhan Das, filed a title suit on 7-8-1946, in the same Court. The award above-referred to related to certain partnership business between the parties. One of the reliefs prayed for in the title suit (No. 127 of 1946) is that the Court should declare that the partnership business was dissolved on a certain date. There was also a prayer that the defendants of the suit might be directed to render accounts from the beginning of the partnership business till the date of its dissolution. There was also an alternative prayer that if the Court should come to the conclusion that there was no legal and effective dissolution of the partnership business, a preliminary decree for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of accounts might be passed. The plaintiff of the suit requested the Court that a Commissioner might be appointed for taking accounts.

(2.) One of the applications in revision (civil Revision No. 909 of 1946) is for stay of proceedings in the title suit mentioned above. The other civil revision (No. 727 of 1946) is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge passed on 5th August 1946, refusing the prayer of the present petitioner to make the award a rule of the Court.

(3.) I shall deal with civil Revision No. 727 of 1946 first. The reasoning of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge in this case for refusing the prayer of the petitioner to proceed under Section 17, Arbitration Act, is that the award in question was not filed in Court under Section 14 of the Act. The following few lines from the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge may be usefully quoted here: In other words, the Court need not pronounce its judgment unless and until the award is filed under Section 14 of the Act. Admittedly here the award has not been filed under Section 14 of the Act. Therefore the opposite party's prayer to the Court for giving its judgment over it seems to be illegal and improper.