Skip to content


Yella Hanumayya Alias Hanuman-thappa Vs. Mullangi Chinna Doddappa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Mad963; 29Ind.Cas.512
AppellantYella Hanumayya Alias Hanuman-thappa
RespondentMullangi Chinna Doddappa
Cases ReferredGhellabhai Atmaram v. Nandu Bai
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), schedule ii, para 16 - award--application to set aside award dismissed--decree--appeal, maintainability of. - .....refer the matters in dispute to arbitration even by the consent of parties. he relies in support of this contention on the case in ghellabhai atmaram v. nandu bai 21 b.p 335.4. in the first place, we are not clear that the observations relied on from the judgment in ghellabhai atmaram v. nandu bai 21 b.p 335 which appear to be obiter dicta, have not been couched by that court in too wide terms. in the second place, the contention that the district court had no jurisdiction to refer the dispute to arbitration was not taken in the lower court or even in the grounds of the appeal petition sought to be converted into a revision petition. in the third place it is a matter of discretion in this court to interfere in revision under section 115, and as we are not satisfied that substantial.....
Judgment:

1. The preliminary objection must be upheld, namely, that under Schedule II, paragraph 16, Clause (2), Civil Procedure Code, no appeal lies from the decree framed on a judgment pronounced by the Court according to the award of arbitrators, after the Court had refused an application to set aside that award as invalid.

2. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.

3. We are asked by the appellant's learned Counsel to set aside the award treating the appeal as a petition in revision under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. His contention is that the District Court had no jurisdiction to refer the matters in dispute to arbitration even by the consent of parties. He relies in support of this contention on the case in Ghellabhai Atmaram v. Nandu Bai 21 B.P 335.

4. In the first place, we are not clear that the observations relied on from the judgment in Ghellabhai Atmaram v. Nandu Bai 21 B.P 335 which appear to be obiter dicta, have not been couched by that Court in too wide terms. In the second place, the contention that the District Court had no jurisdiction to refer the dispute to arbitration was not taken in the lower Court or even in the grounds of the appeal petition sought to be converted into a revision petition. In the third place it is a matter of discretion in this Court to interfere in revision under Section 115, and as we are not satisfied that substantial justice has not been done between the parties by the order of the District Court. We do not think that it is a fit case for interference in revision.


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