GAURI SINGH Vs. RAMLOCHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by the plaintiff. The facts relating to this application are as follows. The opposite party and their gotias, having obtained a decree against the petitioner, applied for execution. Sometime later the gotias of the opposite party filed two applications stating that the decree had been completely satisfied. The judgment-petitioner also applied for satisfaction of the decree to be certified. The opposite party objected, and the executing Court held that the claim had not been satisfied. Thereupon, on 18-12-1926, 13 bighas of the judgment-debtor's land was put up for sale and sold in execution, the purchasers being the opposite party decree-holder. The judgment-debtor then made an application under Order 21, Rule 90, which was dismissed on 14-10-1927. After this the judgment-debtor brought a suit against the opposite party and their gotias, which was dismissed on 10-2-1931. The case of the petitioner is that after this there was an arrangement by which the opposite party agreed to re-convey his lands to him for Rs. 900, of which Rs. 700 was paid and Rs. 200 remained outstanding. There was, however, dispute feetween the parties in regard to this matter and this was referred to the arbitration of punches. The punches gave a written award on 18-3-1941. They found that there was an agreement to re- convey the land for Rs. 1000, of which Rs. 625 had been paid and Rs. 875 remained due. The award directed the opposite party to execute a deed of re- conveyance in favour of the petitioner, and the latter, to pay the balance due. It was registered on 30-8-1941. The present suit was instituted by the petitioner on 22-11-1941, on a court-fee of Rs. 1, the value of the subject-matter for purposes of jurisdiction being stated to be Rs. 3000. In this suit the plaintiff prayed for an order that the award be filed and a decree prepared in accordance with it. The first Court decreed the suit-in terms of the award. The defendants appealed. The appellate Court held that the plaintiff had failed, to prove that the defendants had agreed to re-convey the property to him, or that there was a dispute between them which had been referred to the punches. The award was held not to be binding on the defendants, and the proceeding to have it filed in Court was held not to be barred by limitation. The suit was, therefore, dismissed. It is against this order that the present application has been filed in this Court.

(2.) It is contended that the decision of the trial Court was final and that no appeal lay from that decision. In my opinion, whether the plaintiff is entitled to maintain this application depends on the nature of the proceeding out of which it has arisen. The proceeding was described by the plaintiff himself as a suit, and was initiated by a document which he described as a plaint in which he described himself as the plaintiff. It is drawn up in the form of a plaint and verified by the plaintiff as such. If the proceeding be regarded as a suit the present application must fail because, in that case, the plaintiff had a right to appeal against the decision of the appellate Court, and, therefore, an application to revise that decree does not lie. Even if the application were allowed to be converted into an appeal it would fail on the merits by reason of the finding of the Court of appeal below that there was in fact no reference to the punches.

(3.) This application must, in my opinion, also fail if the "plaint" be regarded as an application to file the award. The only procedure prescribed for filing an award is that contained in Section 14(2), Arbitration Act, 1940. Section 14 occurs in chap. II of the Act, which includes Secs.3 to 19 (inclusive) and which governs an arbitration without the intervention of the Court. It also applies to an arbitration with the intervention of the Court, where there is no suit pending, by reason of Section 20(5), and to an arbitration in a suit by reason of Section 25.