Skip to content


Prabhu Dayal Vs. Munshi Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All573
AppellantPrabhu Dayal
RespondentMunshi Lal
Cases ReferredLutawan Kubar v. Lachiya
Excerpt:
- - one of the objections to the award that was taken before the learned munsif, and that has been reiterated in the course of the arguments before me, was that one of the three punchas having refused to sign the award the award was bad in law. the award having been made and not having been found invalid by the learned munsif for the reasons given by him, the only course open to the learned munsif was to pass a decree in terms of the award and in so doing he has not exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law, nor has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, nor has he acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, vide ghulam khan v.iqbal ahmad, j.1. by this application it is sought to get a decree passed by the learned munsif of ghaziabad revised, that decree was passed in accordance with an award. one of the objections to the award that was taken before the learned munsif, and that has been reiterated in the course of the arguments before me, was that one of the three punchas having refused to sign the award the award was bad in law. the learned munsif overruled this objection and the other objection of the applicant, and as stated above passed a decree in accordance with the award.2. in my opinion this court cannot interfere with the decree so passed in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. the award having been made and not having been found invalid by the learned munsif for the reasons given by him, the.....
Judgment:

Iqbal Ahmad, J.

1. By this application it is sought to get a decree passed by the learned Munsif of Ghaziabad revised, That decree was passed in accordance with an award. One of the objections to the award that was taken before the learned Munsif, and that has been reiterated in the course of the arguments before me, was that one of the three punchas having refused to sign the award the award was bad in law. The learned Munsif overruled this objection and the other objection of the applicant, and as stated above passed a decree in accordance with the award.

2. In my opinion this Court cannot interfere with the decree so passed in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The award having been made and not having been found invalid by the learned Munsif for the reasons given by him, the only course open to the learned Munsif was to pass a decree in terms of the award and in so doing he has not exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law, nor has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, nor has he acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, vide Ghulam Khan v. Muhammad Hussan [1902] 29 Cal. 167.

3. As has been pointed out by the learned Chief Justice in the case of Lutawan Kubar v. Lachiya [1914] 36 All. 69.

It was the clear intention of the Legislature that objections to the award on the ground of invalidity from any cause whatever should be decided by that Court (i.e.,) the Court which had made the order of reference to arbitration and passed a decree in accordance with the award) and by no other Court.

4. The question whether or not the award was valid was one especially reserved for the decision of the Court below and even if it has erred on a question of law in coming to a decision on that point, that in itself is not a ground for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this Court.

5. The application is rejected.


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