Skip to content


Siwan Rai and anr. Vs. Lachmi Singh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All733
AppellantSiwan Rai and anr.
RespondentLachmi Singh and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....of a court is not bound to apply to a court to file the award harakh ram jani v. lakshmi ram jani a.i.r. 1921 all 384. rule 20, sch. 2 merely uses the words 'may apply' which do not make it obligatory on the party to apply. in view of the authorities quoted above this appeal has no force and is dismissed under order 41, rule 11, civil p.c.
Judgment:

Sulaiman, J.

1. The only point raised in this case is that a certain award relied upon by the Courts below in favour of the plaintiffs was illegal and ineffectual inasmuch as no application for riling it had been made. The appeal in my opinion has no force whatsoever. It is not necessary for the validity of an award that it must be filed in Court. Under the old Code it was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Muhammad Newaz Khan v. Alam Khan [1891] 18 Cal. 414 that mere refusal to file an award did not vitiate it, but merely left it to have its ordinary legal effect. The same principle was followed in the case of Kunji Lal v. Durga Prashad [1910] 32 All. 484. Even under the new Code it has been held by this Court that a party wishing to avail himself of an award in an arbitration effected without the intervention of a Court is not bound to apply to a Court to file the award Harakh Ram Jani v. Lakshmi Ram Jani A.I.R. 1921 All 384. Rule 20, Sch. 2 merely uses the words 'may apply' which do not make it obligatory on the party to apply. In view of the authorities quoted above this appeal has no force and is dismissed under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P.C.


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