RAMESHWAR NATH Vs. GHULAM RASOOL KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against a decree passed by the learned Small Cause Court Judge of Cawnpore. The applicant here was the defendant in the suit. The date fixed for the hearing of the suit was 29 November 1937. On that date the counsel for the parties made a statement which literally translated runs as follows: We appoint Daroga Baljit Singh as a referee. Let the case be decided upon any statement which, ho may make in Court after taking the statements of the parties. We shall have no objection.

(2.) The decision of the application really turns upon the true interpretation to be put upon this statement of the counsel as to the power which it conferred on Daroga Baljit Singh. The question is whether by this statement Baljit Singh was appointed only a referee who was to make a statement in Court which Court was to decide the case, or as an arbitrator who had to make an award finally settling the dispute between the parties. It appears that on the same date, and probably soon after the statement of the counsel was recorded by the Court, Daroga Baljit Singh was called and he also made a statement to the following effect : "I have no objection to decide the case." After recording these statements of the counsel and Baljit Singh the Court passed an order as follows : He should put in his statement by 15 December 1937." On 13 December 1937, the present applicant made application in the Court below purporting to be under Section 151, Civil P.C., in which he said that he did not want to have the case decided by the Munhasar-ilah, and prayed that the order appointing Baljit Singh as Munhasar-ilah should be cancelled and the case be decided by the Court. This application was rejected by the Court below with the following order: No reason is given why the applicant wants to bade out. I see no reason to set aside the order of reference at the applicant's sweet will. The parties were do finitely told that they must consider all the facts freely before applying for having the case referred. Files.

(3.) It may be added here that on 14 December the referee made an application praying for further time, and upon that application the Court passed the following order : "it is an old case. The referee must put in his statement by 31 December 1937." Daroga Baljit Singh put in a written statement on 20 December 1937. This statement is clearly an award imposing upon the applicant the liability to pay Rs. 50 to the plaintiff in the suit. In the body of the statement the referee says that he made a thorough inquiry on the spot and had heard the parties. When the case was taken up for hearing on 23 December 1937 the present applicant made another application in which he prayed that the statement filed by the referee should not be accepted and the Court should proceed to decide the case. In this application a reference was also made to the previous application dated 13th December 1937. Upon this application the Court passed the following order: The referee sent in his written statement on 20 December 1937. This application is put in today. Before this, the applicant filed an application on 20 December 1937 and in that application ho gave no reason why he wanted to resile from the reference. That application was therefore rejected. In my opinion, it is not now open to the applicant to attribute motives to the referee and have his decision sot aside because the decision has gone against him. I cannot allow this application. Rejected.