Skip to content


Ruddaraju Sooraparaju Vs. Ruddaraju Narayana Raju and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in17Ind.Cas.431
AppellantRuddaraju Sooraparaju
RespondentRuddaraju Narayana Raju and ors.
Cases ReferredGhulam Jilani v. Muhammad Hussain
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), schedule ii, para. 16 - limitation act (ix of 1908), schedule i, article 158--passing decree in terms of award before expiry of 10 days from date of submission of award--material irregularity--appeal--revision--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 115. - .....days from that day within which to make applications under rule 16 of schedule ii of the code of civil procedure (section 522 of the old code of civil procedure, 1882) to set aside the award.2. the appellant appeals against the decree on the ground that the subordinate judge had no jurisdiction to make a decree before the expiry of the ten days allowed for making an application to set aside the award.3. the respondents contend that no appeal lies, and refer to the case reported in mouji premji sett v. maliyakel koyassan koya haji 3 m.k 59. the contrary view, however, has been taken in the case reported as najm-ud-din ahmed v. albert puech 4 a.l.j. 450. in view of these conflicting decisions and of the decision of the punjab chief court reported as ghulam jilani v. muhammad hussain 12.....
Judgment:

1. It is conceded that, in this case, the Subordinate Judge passed his decree on the same day on which the award of the arbitrators was submitted to him. But, under Article 158 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act IX of 1908, the parties had ten days from that day within which to make applications under Rule 16 of Schedule II of the Code of Civil Procedure (section 522 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, 1882) to set aside the award.

2. The appellant appeals against the decree on the ground that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to make a decree before the expiry of the ten days allowed for making an application to set aside the award.

3. The respondents contend that no appeal lies, and refer to the case reported in Mouji Premji Sett v. Maliyakel Koyassan Koya Haji 3 M.K 59. The contrary view, however, has been taken in the case reported as Najm-ud-din Ahmed v. Albert Puech 4 A.L.J. 450. In view of these conflicting decisions and of the decision of the Punjab Chief Court reported as Ghulam Jilani v. Muhammad Hussain 12 M.L.J. 77 it may be doubted whether an appeal lies, but, if no appeal lies, it is clear from the remarks of the Privy Council at pages 185 and 188 of that case that the present case is one in which the High Court may interfere under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (old Section 622). We have no doubt that the Subordinate Judge, in passing his judgment and decree before the expiry of the time allowed by law for application to set aside the award, notwithstanding the express provision of Rule 16 of Schedule II of the Code of Civil Procedure that the judgment and decree are to be passed after the time for such application has expired, acted without jurisdiction or with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction so as to call for our interference under Section 622 (now Section 115) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. We set aside the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge and remand the suit to him in order that he may give the parties an opportunity of filing applications to set aside the award within ten days of the receipt of our order.

5. Costs will abide the result.


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