RAM LAGAN TEWARI Vs. PHATANGAN LOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It was admitted by the pellant's learned Counsel that no appeal lay, and this matter was argued as if it were a revision. The parties appointed three pleaders Mr. Kamlakar, Mr. Kunj Behari and Mr. Firangi Rai as arbitrators to decide the dispute between them and appointed Mr. Kunj Behari umpire. It so happened that one of the arbitrators absented himself There is no evidence of his refusal to act. He did not communicate to the Court any refusal. The umpire thereupon approached the Court and inquired what was to be done. What he said on 30th March 1925 in a petition was: Owing to the absence of one of the panches arbitration could not take place. The plaintiff's nephew says that he does not like to have the case decided by us (arbitrators). Under the circumstances I would request the favour of your kindly ordering me as to what to do.

(2.) The trial Judge directed that action should be taken under para. 9 (a), Schedule 2, Civil P.C. The provision of the law is: Where an umpire has been appointed, he may enter on the reference in the place of the arbitrators: (a) if they have allowed the appointed time to expire without making an award.

(3.) It may be conceded in favour of the applicant that the trial Court is not verbally correct in saying that the other arbitrators did not present themselves. It was one arbitrator, and not two, who resiled from the undertaking. The umpire consulted the Court after the time for making the award had expired.