1. These are three connected revision petitions, which arise out of three suits, numbered 41/1, 196/1 and 205/1 of 1953, pertaining to the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Mahasu. At the instance of the parties, the three suits were referred to arbitration. The arbitrators submitted their award to the Court on 8-1-1954. parties were given time till 19-2-1954 to file objection, if any, to the awards. No objections were preferred and, thereupon, the learned Senior Subordinate Judge passed decrees in terms of the awards. It is against these decrees that these revision petitions have been filed.
2. Yesterday, I heard learned counsel for the petitioners. I called upon him to show how these revision petitions were competent, in view of the fact that the petitioners filed no objections to the awards in spite of the fact that they were given an opportunity to do so. To this, learned counsel replied that the petitioners' counsel was absent at that stage and, consequently, they did not realize that they would have to file objections. I am unable to accept this argument. The proceedings of 9-1-1954 and 19-2-1954 are in the hand of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge himself, Mr. Hem Chand. The order-sheet of 9-1-1954 shows clearly that Jiwanand and Mt. Lachmi were present in the Subordinate Judge's Court on that day. They were clearly told that, if they felt aggrieved by the award, they should file their objections by 19-2-1954. Similarly, the order-sheet shows that, on 19-2-1954, Jiwanand was present and no objections to the award were filed. Under these circumstances, it was hardly necessary for the Subordinate Judge to issue a written notice to the parties to file objections, as learned counsel suggests.
3. In a case of this kind, this Court could interfere only if it is shown that the Subordinate Judge acted altogether without jurisdiction in passing a decree in terms of the award. In this view, I am supported by a ruling reported in--'Harbhan Dat v. Ladli Saran', AIR 1933 Oudh 547 (A), where it was held :
'Although the intention of para 16 is to give finality to decrees passed in accordance with the decision of the arbitrator, yet it cannot be said that in no possible case can a revision be entertained against such decrees. If, for instance, it can be shown that the lower Court acted altogether without jurisdiction in passing a decree in terms of the award, it would be permissible to entertain a revision under Section 115.'
The disputes between the parties were referred to arbitration at the instance of the parties. In suits 196/1 and 205/1, the application for appointment of arbitrators was signed by Jiwanand. In the latter suit. Jiwanand's statement was also recorded on 1-10-1953 and he agreed to the arbitrators proposed. In the former suit, namely, 196/1, the application to refer the matter to the arbitration bears the thumb-impression of Mt. Lachmi and she also made a statement on 7-10-1953. agreeing to the arbitrators proposed. In the case of suit 41/1 of 1953, the application for appointment of arbitrators bears the thumb-impression of Mt. Lachmi and she also made a statement on 7-10-1953, agreeing to the arbitrators proposed. Prom the record of the proceedings maintained by the arbitrators, it would appear that the present petitioners, Jiwanand and Mt. Lachmi, did appear before the arbitrators. In case the present petitioners felt aggrieved by the award in any manner, they should have filed objections thereto, during the time granted to them by the Subordinate Judge.
Under Section 39, Arbitration Act, an order refusing to set aside an award is open to appeal. Not having cared to avail themselves of the rights conferred upon them by law, the petitioners are now debarred from challenging the award, unless, as already stated, they can show that the Sub ordinate Judge had no jurisdiction, at all, to pass a decree in terms of the award. I am unable to see how it can be said that the Senior Sub ordinate Judge acted without jurisdiction, in passing a decree in terms' of the award. The result is:the three revision petitions must fail. They are, accordingly, rejected. This order will be read in all the three cases.