1. The facts of the case out of which this petition has arisen and the Rule has been granted are as follows : On the 29th of August 1923 the plaintiffs brought a suit against a number of persons and on the 11th June the case by consent of parties was referred to arbitration. Certain time was allowed to the arbitrators to submit their report. On the 16th July they asked for further time and time was extended till the 9th of August. On the 7th August apparently the arbitrators filed their award and on the 9th August 1924 the following order was recorded by the Court ' The arbitrators filed their award on the 7th August 1924. Put up on the 20th August for objections if any'. When the case was put up on the 20th August the plaintiffs asked for further time to file objections. The Munsif refused to grant any further time and disposed of the case on the 21st August.
2. The plaintiffs have moved this Court and the first ground which was taken and which, in my opinion, is sufficient to dispose of this Rule is that no notice of the filing of the award was given to the parties. Schedule II, Clause 10 of the C.P.C. provides 'where an award in a suit has been made, the persons who made it shall sign it and cause it to be filed in Court, together with any depositions and documents which have been taken and proved before them; and notice of the filing shall be given to the parties.' As far as can be seen from the order-sheet in this case the notice required by Clause 10 was never given. The order of the 9th August noting that the arbitrators filed their award on the 7th August and directing that the case be put up on the 20th August for objections if any was not signed by the Pleaders. There is nothing to show that they were aware that this arbitration award had been filed.
3. This question of giving notice of the filing of the arbitration award has been considered in several cases to which our attention has been drawn. The first case is the case of Rangasami v. Muttusami 11 M. 144 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 100. In that case a District Munsif passed a decree in the terms of an award without giving notice of the filing of the award to the parties and the learned Judges held that in doing so he acted with material irregularity. The same point was considered in the case of Chatarbuj Das v. Ganesh Ram 20 A. 474 : A.W.N. (1898) 132 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 664. There the learned Judges held that it was a good ground for revision of a decree based upon an award filed in Court that no notice of the filing of the award was given by the Court to the parties as required by Section 516 of the C.P.C. (which corresponds to Schedule II, Clause 10 of the present Code) even though the applicant in revision might have received information aliunde that the award had been filed. This case is even stronger than the Madras case to which I have already referred. It, therefore, seems to me that the learned Munsif in omitting to give notice of the filing of the award to the parties has committed a serious irregularity.
4. The learned Munsif's order, therefore, will be set aside and the case will be sent back to him to be dealt with after giving due notice under Clause 10, Schedule II, C. P. C, of the filing of the award to the parties and allowing proper time for filing objection, if any, which they desire to make-In the circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs.
5. I agree.