KODURI KRISHNAMMA Vs. KODURI CHENNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has filed this application to revise the decree of the District Munsiff of Tanuku which was passed on the basis of an award. After the issues in the suit were framed the matter in difference between the parties to the suit was referred to arbitration. The arbitrators were directed to file the award by 10 July, 1947. An award was filed into Court on the 10 July, 1947. On that day the District Munsiff passed an order " Award filed; objections, if any, 12 July, 1947." As no objections were filed on 12 July, 1947, a decree in terms of the award was passed on that day.

(2.) In this revision petition, the main point urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned District Munsiff acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction in not giving 30 days time for filing objections to the award from the date of service of notice of the award as provided by the amended Art. 158 of the Indian Limitation Act. As the question whether the District Munsiff failed to give 30 days time or whether the defendant waived his right to file objections was in controversy between the parties, I called for a report from the learned District Munsiff. His report shows that after the award was filed into Court on 10 July, 1947, only two days time was granted and on 12 July, 1947, as no objections were filed by either party, the suit was decreed in terms of the award. There is no truth in the contention of the respondent that the defendant waived his right to file objections and that therefore the decree in terms of the award was passed. As the learned District Munsiff acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction in not observing the rule regarding the time for filing of objections, it is a case in which the order of the learned District Munsiff should be set aside and the matter remanded for disposal according to law.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, however, an objection was taken that the proper remedy of the defendant was to file an appeal against the decree and not a civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is not contended by the respondents that this is a matter in which a right of appeal is provided specifically by Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The contention urged is that against the decree an appeal lies as the decree is an illegal decree and not a decree in accordance with law. Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, says: Where the Court sees no cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award, the Court shall, after the time for making an application, to set aside the award has expired, or such application having been made, after refusing it, proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award, and upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow, and no appeal shall lie from such decree except on the ground that it is in excess of, or not otherwise in accordance with, the award.