Skip to content


Chatarbuj Das Vs. Ganesh Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1898)ILR20All474
AppellantChatarbuj Das
RespondentGanesh Ram
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, section 616 - award--decree passed on award filed in court without notice of its filing being sent to the parties--revision. - - 144. in that case it was observed that the court of the munsif which passed the decree was bound to give the petitioners notice of the filing of the award, which it failed to do, and that the omission to do so was a material irregularity......this is an application calling on this court to exercise its revisional powers in respect of a decree passed on the 28th of march 1898 by the subordinate judge of mainpuri on an award submitted by arbitrators appointed by the parties. the first ground taken in the petition of revision, and the only ground argued before us, is that the learned subordinate judge acted with material irregularity, in the exercise of his jurisdiction, in that he passed the decree on the award without first having sent to the parties the notice required by section 516 of the code of civil procedure. it is admitted that notice was not sent; but it was contended, and it is probably true, that the applicant did know that the award had been filed. that matter, however, we regard as immaterial; it was the duty.....
Judgment:

Louis Kershaw, C.J. and Burkitt, J.

1. This is an application calling on this Court to exercise its revisional powers in respect of a decree passed on the 28th of March 1898 by the Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri on an award submitted by arbitrators appointed by the parties. The first ground taken in the petition of revision, and the only ground argued before us, is that the learned Subordinate Judge acted with material irregularity, in the exercise of his jurisdiction, in that he passed the decree on the award without first having sent to the parties the notice required by Section 516 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is admitted that notice was not sent; but it was contended, and it is probably true, that the applicant did know that the award had been filed. That matter, however, we regard as immaterial; it was the duty of the Court to send notice. The applicant, in our opinion, might have remained inactive in the case, and was not bound to take any steps in it until he received notice from the Court. This case is on all fours with the case of Rangasami v. Muttusami I.L.R. 11 Mad. 144. In that case it was observed that the Court of the Munsif which passed the decree was bound to give the petitioners notice of the filing of the award, which it failed to do, and that the omission to do so was a material irregularity. The High Court further went on to hold that the Munsif should not have proceeded to pass a decree in conformity with the award without first hearing the petitioner's objections. In these observations we fully concur, and adopting the form of the decree used by the Madras Court, we allow this application. We set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge. We direct him to restore the suit to the file, and after considering the objections which we understand have been filed by the applicant, to pass such orders as appear to be just. The applicant will have his costs of this application.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //