CHANGALROYA CHETTI Vs. RAGHAVA RAMANUJA DOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 are the appellants The defendants 1 to 3 alone and the plaintiff agreed to abide by the decision of the District Munsif passed as an arbitrator. The defendants 4 and 5 who are majors and who are interested in the litigation remained ex-parte as also the guardian of the minor defendants 9 and 10. The defendants 6 to 8 are minors represented by their guardians, defendants 1 and 2. So far as the defendants 6 to 8 are concerned, it might be taken (though the defendants 1 to 3 do not expressly say so in the statement given to the District Munsif) that their guardians the defendants 1 and 2 agreed to abide by the District Munsif s decision on behalf of these minors also.

(2.) The District Munsif as such arbitrator dismissed the plaintiff s suit on a mere inspection of the disputed house sites without referring to the evidence of the plaintiff s witness already examined and apparently without allowing an opportunity to the plaintiff to prove his case further against the ex-parte defendants 4, 5, 9 and 10.

(3.) On appeal by the plaintiff, the Subordinate Judge set aside the District Munsif s decision on the following grounds: 1. There was no valid reference to arbitration under schedule 2 paragraph 1 to the Civil Procedure Code as the defendants 4 to 10 did not join in the reference. 2. The judgment of the District Munsif (which was also the award), was passed on the date of the award itself, without giving to the plaintiff 10 days time to apply to set aside the award under schedule 2, paragraph 16(1). 3. The reference to arbitration on behalf of the minors (the defendants 6 to 8) not having been made with sanction of the court, the reference was invalid under Order 32 Rule 7.