LAWS(PVC)-1939-8-70

TEJPAL MARWARI Vs. KEDARNATH HIMATSINGKA

Decided On August 08, 1939
TEJPAL MARWARI Appellant
V/S
KEDARNATH HIMATSINGKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants against an order modifying an award in a suit brought by the respondents in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Santal Parganas for recovery of a certain sum of money. The plaintiffs case was that the defendants used to take certain articles on credit from them and they referred in their plaint to certain adjustments of account between them and the defendants, one of them being alleged to have taken place on 1 Baisakh 1337. On 11th February 1935, before the suit was referred to arbitration, the plaintiffs applied to the Subordinate Judge to allow them to amend their plaint by changing 1st Baisakh 1337 into 16 Kartick 1337 on the ground that the former date had been mentioned by mistake.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge at first allowed the amendment, but afterwards on objection by the defendants he recalled his previous order and disallowed the amendment with these observations: The plaintiffs by their amendment now want to shift the date to 16 Kartick 1387 B.S. This changes the position materially. How far this will affect the accounts is another point, and will come up for consideration in due course.

(3.) It appears that after the suit was referred to arbitration the plaintiffs again prayed for amendment of the plaint by inserting the new date, and the arbitrator allowed the prayer. Thus when the award was submitted by the arbitrator to the Subordinate Judge, one of the objections raised by the appellants to the award was that the arbitrator had no power to allow an amendment which had previously been refused by the Court. The Subordinate Judge over, ruled not only this objection but all the other objections put forward by the defendants but as he found that the arbitrator had made certain mistakes in calculating interest, he made slight modifications in the award. These modifications are in favour of the defendants, and the learned advocate appearing for them has clearly stated before us that they have no grievance in so far as the award has been modified with regacd to interest.