Skip to content


Firm Sant Lal-mahadeo Prasad Vs. Kedar Nath - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935All519
AppellantFirm Sant Lal-mahadeo Prasad
RespondentKedar Nath
Cases ReferredRisal Singh v. Faqira Singh
Excerpt:
- - 452. if the present applicant like the applicant in that case had come for the first time before this court, i would consider that the ruling would govern the civil rivision and i would have ruled that no civil revision lay. i set aside the judgment and decree complained of and remand the case to the munsif in order that he may give ten days' time to the parties, from the date of the information given to the parties of the receipt of the record in his court to file objections. but in view of the obiter dictum of the hon'ble high court, i hold that the proceedings in this particular case were bad. instead of complying with these provisions the court has merely referred to the order of this court as an obiter dictum and istated that on that account the arbitration proceedings are bad......i would consider that the ruling would govern the civil rivision and i would have ruled that no civil revision lay. but the facts are different. in civil revision no. 169 of 1933, the defendant made an application to this court to revise the. judgment of this munsif who made a decree in this suit in terms of the award. a learned single judge of this court in that revisional order stated that the mumsif should have allowed the parties a chance to challenge the decision of the arbitrator and should have allowed the usual period of ten days to file objections. this court therefore ordered:i set aside the judgment and decree complained of and remand the case to the munsif in order that he may give ten days' time to the parties, from the date of the information given to the parties of the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Bennet, J.

1. This is an application in civil revision by a plaintiff against an order dated 28th March 1934, by a Special Murnsif of Allahabad, Syed Izhar Hasan. A preliminary objection has been taken that as the order in question is one 'setting aside the decree of the arbitrator,' by which presumably the Muinsif meant setting aside the award of the arbitrator and directing parties to produced evidence, therefore there was no case decided but only a case pending and no revision lay under Section 115, Civil P.C. It has been held to this effect in Risal Singh v. Faqira Singh 1932 All. 452. If the present applicant like the applicant in that case had come for the first time before this Court, I would consider that the ruling would govern the civil rivision and I would have ruled that no civil revision lay. But the facts are different. In Civil Revision No. 169 of 1933, the defendant made an application to this Court to revise the. judgment of this Munsif who made a decree in this suit in terms of the award. A learned Single Judge of this Court in that revisional order stated that the Mumsif should have allowed the parties a chance to challenge the decision of the arbitrator and should have allowed the usual period of ten days to file objections. This Court therefore ordered:

I set aside the judgment and decree complained of and remand the case to the Munsif in order that he may give ten days' time to the parties, from the date of the information given to the parties of the receipt of the record in his Court to file objections. After the objections if any have been decided, the Munsif should proceed in accordance with law.

2. Now, it is stated that the Munsif allowed the parties 10 days to file objections and then the Munsif passed the order which is now under revision. That order states as follows:

Heard the learned Counsel for parties. The general practice of this Court has been that a case is referred for decision to a referee. The referee generally heard orally or took down the evidence of parties and gives Ms decision on such evidence. It has not been considered necessary to submit record of evidence to my Court.

But in view of the obiter dictum of the Hon'ble High Court, I hold that the proceedings in this particular case were bad.

I set aside the decree of the arbitrator. Parties to produced evidence before me on 30th April 1934.

3. It is clear that what was intended by the learned Judge of this Court was that the Munsif should consider the objections in accordance with Rule 15, Schedule 2, Civil P.C. Under that rule the Court can set aside an arbitration award only on one of the grounds mentioned in that rule. The Court has not attempted to act in accordance with the provisions of that rule. I consider that an order on the objections to an arbitration award should comply with the provisions of Order 20, Rule 5, and that the Court should state its finding or decision with the reasons therefor upon each separate issue. Instead of complying with these provisions the Court has merely referred to the order of this Court as an obiter dictum and istated that on that account the arbitration proceedings are bad. I consider that this Munsif has not complied with the direction of this Court which was that the Munsif should decide the objections and proceed in accordance with law. The Munsif has not decided the objections and he has not proceeded in accordance with law. Now, learned Counsel argued that because the present order would not amount to a case decided therefore no revision would lie to this Court. I consider that under the provisions of Section 107, Government of India Act, this Court has power and jurisdiction to see that the orders of this Court are earned out. This Court has given certain directions to this Munsif as to how he shall proceed. The Munsif has not carried out those directions and has purported to act in a different manner. That being so, I consider that this Court has jurisdiction to set the order in question aside, and I set it aside, and I direct the Munsif to carry out the order already given on 4th October 1933, in Civil Revision No. 169 of 1933, that is, the Munsif should hear the parties and consider the objections and should set aside the award only if he finds that there are grounds for setting it aside, under Rule 15 of Schedule 2. Accordingly I allow this application in revision with costs and I set aside the order of 28th March 1934, and direct the Munsif to proceed in accordance with this order.


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