Skip to content


Udit Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Lakhan Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933All313; 145Ind.Cas.403
AppellantUdit Singh and ors.
RespondentRam Lakhan Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....terms of the award dated 23rd december 1931. it appears that there was a partition suit before the learned judge in the court below and on 30th november 1931 the parties or some of them (it is stated before us that one of the applicants was not a party) made a statement in court to the effect that three persons named by them should decide the case and that the case might be referred to them. they further said that any out of the three gentlemen might come to court and state what was the decision arrived at by the three gentlemen to whom the case was referred. this was done and accordingly one of the three gentlemen, mr. kamta prasad, appeared before the subordinate judge and made a statement on oath and he stated that he had consulted his other colleagues and had taken their signatures.....
Judgment:

Mukerji, Ag. C.J.

1. This is a petition in revision asking us to set aside an order of the learned Subordinate Judge accepting an award and directing a decree to be made in terms of the award dated 23rd December 1931. It appears that there was a partition suit before the learned Judge in the Court below and on 30th November 1931 the parties or some of them (it is stated before us that one of the applicants was not a party) made a statement in Court to the effect that three persons named by them should decide the case and that the case might be referred to them. They further said that any out of the three gentlemen might come to Court and state what was the decision arrived at by the three gentlemen to whom the case was referred. This was done and accordingly one of the three gentlemen, Mr. Kamta Prasad, appeared before the Subordinate Judge and made a statement on oath and he stated that he had consulted his other colleagues and had taken their signatures also on the written judgment.

2. The learned Counsel for the respondents had argued that it was not a reference to arbitration but a statement made under the Oaths Act. We do not agree with this view. The first question that arises for decision is whether this was a reference to arbitration and what was declared in writing and also in the statement by Mr. Kamta Prasad (both being identical) was or was not an award. We are of opinion that the proceedings amounted to a reference to arbitration and the result was an award by three gentlemen. In the circumstances the further question is whether it was not incumbent on the lower Court to give the parties ten days' time to file exceptions to the award if they were so inclined to do. It is common ground that no such time was granted. In the circumstances we hold that the learned Judge acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. We allow the petition in revision and setting aside the order of 23rd December 1931 send back the case to the Court below for giving the parties ten days' time from the, date of the receipt of the record in the Court below to file objections to the award and then to decide the objections that may be taken. Costs here and hereto will abide the result.


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