DWARKA DAS Vs. PEARAY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order of the Additional Civil Judge, Mathura, rejecting the objections of the appellants to the passing of a decree in terms of an award. Four parties viz., Pearey Lal and his son Kishen Prasad, Jagannath and his son Gopal Prasad, Dwarka Prasad (alias Dwarka Das) and his minor sons Lachhman Prasad and Sanwal Prasad. Sri Nath and his minor son Sita Ram entered into an agreement to refer their disputes to the arbitration of one Bishambhar Nath. This agreement is dated 2 February, 1944. In pursuance of this reference to arbitration Bishambhar Nath gave an award on 2ndAugust 1944, and he also Informed the parties of his having done so. Later. an, Bishambhar Nath took proceedings under Section 14, Arbitration Act, on 31 August 194S. He made an application to the Court stating that the disputes between the parties having been referred to him for arbitration he had given an ward and had informed the parties also about it that he was filing the award in Court. In this application he named four parties, Lala Pearey Lal for self and as karta of his joint family, Lala Jagannath for self and as karta of his joint family, Lala Dwarka Das for self and as karta of his joint family and Lala Sri Nath for self and as karta, of his joint family.

(2.) When the award was filed in Court the Court issued notices to these four parties and fixed 2 November, 1946, as the date in the case. This notice was served on Dwarka Das appellant on 22 September, 1943. Sri Nath, 4 party, made an application to the Court stating that the arbitrator had filed the award at his request and that a decree be passed in terms of the award. Dwarka Das, however, objected to the passing of a decree in terms of the award. His objections were: (1) That the arbitrator had no locus standi to file the award himself. (2) That the application was barred by time under Art. 178 of the Limitation Act. (3) That the arbitrator has misconducted himself. (4) That the application was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The petition of objections was filed on 2 November, 1946, the date fixed in the notice issued by the Court. It will be" observed that this petition was filed beyond thirty days of the date of the service of the notice upon him. No other party put in any appearance. When the case was taken up by the Court it was pointed out on behalf of Sri Nath that the objections of Dwarka Das having been filed beyond thirty days as provided in Art. 158, Limitation Act, they could not be taken into consideration, and that, therefore, the Court was bound to pass a decree in semis of the award under Section 17, Arbitration Act. On behalf of Dwarka Das it was argued that the period of limitation prescribed under Art. 158, Limitation Act, did not apply to his objections to the passing of a decree in terms of the award and that in any case the Court was bound to see whether the application under Section 14 itself was filed within time having regard to the period of limitation prescribed in Art. 178, Limitation Act.

(3.) The learned Additional Civil Judge came to the conclusion that since Dwarka Prasad's objections fell within the purview of Art. 158, limitation Act, and since they were filed beyond so days of the service of the notice upon him, they could not be looked into. He further came to the conclusion that if the objections of Dwarka Prasad could not be looked into he was bound so pass a decree in terms of the award under Section 17, Arbitration Act without going into anything else. In the result the Additional Civil Judge rejected the objections of Dwarka Prasad and passed a decree in terms of the award.