Skip to content


Firm Sheo Bakhsh Rai Gunpat Rai Through Lala Suraj Mal Vs. Firm Mansuma Sri Ram Mahadeo Through Sri Ram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1921All63; 63Ind.Cas.399
AppellantFirm Sheo Bakhsh Rai Gunpat Rai Through Lala Suraj Mal
RespondentFirm Mansuma Sri Ram Mahadeo Through Sri Ram
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908), scheduled i, article 158 - award--objection---limitation, omcmencement of. - - i think in these circumstances the decision of the court below must be upset and the opposite view of the law must be held to be good......that act, the entry in column 3 against article 158 was amended and now runs as follows: 'when the award is filed in court and notice of the filing has been given to the parties.' it is clear that the legislature took that view of the law which is in favour of the present applicant, although the reason given in the bill for the alteration was to remove the discrepancy between the existing entry in article 158 and section 10 of the second schedule to the civil procedure code of 1908, section 10 of the code makes it compulsory for the court to give notice of the filing to the parties. of this compulsory duty of the court article 158 as it originally stood apparently took no notice and the time was made to run from the date when the award was filed, and not from the date when the notice had.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. This is an application in revision arising out of a suit decided in the Small Cause Court at Cawnpore. In the course of that suit there was a submission to arbitration and the Court ordered the arbitrator to submit the award on the 29th of 1919. As a matter of actual fact the arbitrator filed the award in Court on the 27th of May 1919, and on the 29th of May 1919 an order was passed by the Court below informing and calling on the parties to file any objection they might wish to within the time allowed by the law. The applicant before me filed his objection on the 7th of June 1919 that is, within ten days from the 29th of May 1919, The Court below rejected his objection as being time-barred, in view of the language of Article 158 of the Limitation Act, which then directed that the time from which the period of ten days begins to run is the time when the award is submitted to the Court, this was the language in column 3 of Article 158 of the Act on the date when the lower Court's order was passed, that is, on the 20th of August 1919. The learned Judge of the Court below has based his order upon certain rulings which he has quoted, and then application in revision to this Court is based upon certain other rulings which are opposed to these on which the Court below has relied As a matter of fact, at the time when the lower Court passed its order and passed a decree in the terms of the award, there was an Amending Act upon the anvil which altered the language in column 3 against Article 158. I refer to the Amending Act XVIII of 1919,which came into force with effect from the 17th of September 1919. Under that Act, the entry in column 3 against Article 158 was amended and now runs as follows: 'When the award is filed in Court and notice of the filing has been given to the parties.' It is clear that the Legislature took that view of the law which is in favour of the present applicant, although the reason given in the Bill for the alteration was to remove the discrepancy between the existing entry in Article 158 and Section 10 of the Second Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, Section 10 of the Code makes it compulsory for the Court to give notice of the filing to the parties. Of this compulsory duty of the Court Article 158 as it originally stood apparently took no notice and the time was made to run from the date when the award was filed, and not from the date when the notice had been given. I think in these circumstances the decision of the Court below must be upset and the opposite view of the law must be held to be good. I, therefore, allow the application, set aside the decree of the Court below and return the record to that Court, with directions to readmit the suit to its original number and to proceed to hear and re-decide it after hearing and deciding the objections filed against the award. Costs of this application will be costs in the cause and will abide the result.


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