MAHADEO PRASAD Vs. BADRI DAS RAMSARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on the revisional side of the High Court by the plaintiffs of a certain suit against a decree made on 14 June 1927 by the Subordinate Judge of Basti.

(2.) It appears that two plaintiffs, one of whom is an applicant in this Court and the other of whom having died, is now represented by the remaining two applicants in this Court, instituted the suit out of which these proceedings have arisen, for recovery of a large sum of money amounting to nearly Rs. 20,000 from the defendants. After the trial began, the parties agreed to refer their difference to the arbitration of three gentlemen, namely, Jokhai Ram, Jainarayan Ram and Ram Kumar Marwari (the latter being the President of the Board of Arbitrators). An order of reference to the arbitrators was made by the learned Subordinate Judge on the day the petition was filed, namely, 28 January 1927. 26 February 1927 was fixed by the Judge for the submission of the award. By a petition dated 23rd February 1927, and signed by the President, Ram Kumar Marwari, the arbitrators sent back the order of reference and the papers sent with it to them, to the Court. In this petition they said that the parties had been summoned and asked to compromise the case, but they did not agree to do so and that as the arbitrators had no time to devote to the arbitration, the papers were being returned. On 24th February 1927, the Subordinate Judge ordered the report to be put up on the date fixed, namely, 26 February 1927. On the latter date the Court took down the statements of the prominent parties, one on each side. It recorded, in the proceedings of the day, that, according to the plaintiff, the arbitrators had returned the papers as they had no time to spare for arbitration and as the parties had failed to come to terms. The proceedings proceeded to note that the defendants version was that the plaintiff had prevented the arbitrators from deciding the case and had forced them to return the papers. The defendants suggested that the Court should summon the arbitrators and enquire from them whether they were really willing to arbitrate. The Court accordingly ordered that the arbitrators should be summoned to appear personally before it on 12 March.

(3.) On 12 March the arbitrators appeared and on being questioned by the Court, they stated that they were willing to arbitrate. On the same day one of the plaintiffs, viz., Tribeni Ram, made two applications before the Court. By the first he said that as the arbitrators had definitely refused to arbitrate there was nothing about which an enquiry could be made from the arbitrators themselves. On this, the Court made the remark that he had already given the reasons in his order dated 26 February 1927 as to why he had summoned the arbitrators it noted further that on the said 26 February 1927 the applicant Tribeni did not object to the course adopted by the Court and that because the arbitrators were present, it was desirable to enquire whether they were willing to arbitrate. Evidently it was after the disposal of this application the questions were put to the arbitrators and they expressed their willingness to arbitrate. By the second application Tribeni, one of the plaintiffs, made various allegations against the arbitrators. The Judge recorded an order stating that there was no sufficient Jeason for superseding the arbitration and if there were any other sufficient grounds for impeaching the award, the plaintiff would he heard in due time, i.e., after the award had been made,