BABU GOVIND DAS Vs. MTINDRAWATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this civil revision an issue has been referred to the Full Bench as follows: Can the Court be considered to have decided a case within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C., where it has set aside the award and superseded the arbitration pending a suit which is consequently to be tried by the Court?

(2.) The facts of the case in which this issue arose may be briefly noted. In the Court of the Additional Civil Judge at Muttra the parties in O.S. No. 33 of 1931 agreed that the suit should be submitted to arbitration under Schedule 2, Civil P.C., to arbitrators agreed on by the parties, but the provisions of Para. 4 were not carried out and no provision was made for a difference of opinion among the arbitrators either by the appointment of an umpire or by declaring that the decision of the majority should prevail. The arbitrators differed and two filed an award in favour of the other party. Both parties made objections and the Court held that the awards were not according to law and the Court set aside the awards and superseded the arbitration and directed the parties to proceed with the suit before the Court itself. Against that order setting aside the awards and superseding the arbitration the civil revision has been filed and objection has been taken that no revision lies as no case has been decided within the meaning of Section 115, Civil P.C. The case has been referred to a Full Bench because of the differences in the rulings of this Court, some of which have been set out in the Order of Reference. Accordingly I begin the consideration of this subject by referring to the various rulings which have been cited in this Court.

(3.) In Chattar Singh V/s. Lekhraj Singh (1883) 5 All 293 it was held in 1883 by a Bench of this Court that an order under Section 521 of the former Civil P.C., setting aside an award made on a reference to arbitration in the course of a suit on the ground of the arbitrators misconduct is not subject to revision by the High Court under Section 622 of the Code. The Court held: The contention that the proceeding for arbitration is a decided case in which no appeal lies within the meaning of the Section, and therefore open to revision under Section 622 is not tenable. The proceeding is of an interlocutory character only, made in the course of a suit; it is part of a case which is still undecided, and in which an appeal lies from the final decree. It was not the intention to allow of revision of interlocutory proceedings, in the course of a suit, which do not determine it. The order, which is the subject of this application, will be open to revision by appeal from the final decree in the suit, and even if Section 622 allowed of it, it would be highly inexpedient for us to interfere at this stage of the case.