(1.) This appeal arises out of an action, which was brought on an award made on a submission to arbitration under an ekrarnama, dated 24 January 1936. The nature of the dispute is not disclosed in the submission to arbitration the ekrarnama merely stating that there was a dispute between the first party and the second party, the executants, as regards joint business relating to some golas jote land and monetary transactions under bahi khata.
(2.) I should have stated that this arbitration took place under Part 2, Schedule 2, Civil P.C. that is to say, arbitration without the intervention of the Court. The award by the arbitrators was published on 28 March 1936. It would then appear that a suit was brought on the award, or, perhaps to be more accurate, an application was made under the schedule to the Civil Procedure Code on 18 April 1936. The matter in its interlocutory stages came before the Court on several occasions; and ultimately on 2 September, 1937 the Court made this order: Plaintiffs file hazree. Defendant also files hazree. The plaintiffs further file a petition stating that after the institution of this suit when award was called for and produced it was discovered that it was unregistered, that as there was still time to get it registered, the arbitrators applied for its return to get it registered, that the defendants objected to its return and the Court rejected the return of the award, that they have filed another award which the arbitrators rewrote and in which they made the previous award a part of it and that the subsequent execution and production of the award does not affect the suit, and prays that if the Court thinks that the suit is not maintainable, the application filed on 18 April 1936 be taken to be filed yesterday and the application filed by them on 18 April 1986 be read with the petition.
(3.) Then on 4 September the plaintiffs filed a petition requesting the Court to allow them to amend their plaint, and the amendment was allowed. By the amendment they (the plaintiffs) relied upon what was described by the arbitrators in the order which I have read as the re-written award dated 6 August 1937, which I might say at once was registered on the 14 of the same month. The objection to the first award appears to be that it was neither written on a sufficiently stamped paper, nor as I have already stated was it registered. The objections to the re-written award were two-fold, and it is upon those objections that Mr. Jha appearing on behalf of the defendant-appellant relies.