Decided on June 23,1954

L.GANGA RAM Appellant
L.RADHA KISHAN Respondents


Harnam Singh, J. - (1.) IN order to appreciate the points that arise fox decision in First Appeal from order No. 2 of 1959 the facts of the case may be set out in some detail.
(2.) ON 20-1-1943 Ganga Ram appellant and Radha Kishan respondent referred the dispute between them to the arbitration of Shri Girdhari Lal by agreement, Exhibit P. 1. ON the following day Shri Girdhari Lal made the award, Exhibit P. 2, which was signed by both parties and presented for registration. In the office of the Sub Registrar Radha Kishan paid Rs. 250/- to Ganga Ram in accordance with the conditions of the award, Ex, P. 2. No further action seems to have been taken by the parties till 23-6-1944, when Radha Kishan instituted Civil Suit No. 313 of 1944 for declaration that by the award, Exhibit P. 2, he had become owner of the property subject to a charge of the dafendant to the extent of Rs. 3,000/-. That suit was decreed by the Sub-Judge on 18-1-1947. ON appeal from the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 319 of 1944 the Senior Sub-Judge dismissed the suit; leaving the parties to bear their own costs. In Regular Second Appeal No, 122 of 1948 the decision given by the Senior Sub-Judge was upheld on 30-5-1951. During the pendency of Regular Second Appeal No. 122 of 1948 Radha Kishan made application under Section 17, Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for decree in accordance with the award, Exhibit P. 2. In resisting that application Ganga Ram pleaded 'inter alia' (1) that no application under Section 17 of the Act was competent; (2) that the application was barred by time; (3) that the application was barred by Section 11, Civil P.C. and (4) that the agreement, Exhibit P. 1 was against public policy and unenforceable. On the pleadings of the parties the Court fixed tile following issues: "1. Whether the applicatiOn for filing the award as framed is incompetent? 2. Whether the agreement of reference is void and illegal On the basis of the objectiOn taken by the respOndent in the written statement. 3. Whether the award, Exhibit P. 2, is unenforceable in view of the grounds mentiOned in the written statement? 4. How does the decisiOn of the appellate Court, Exhibit P. 3, affect the present suit, the previous proceedings having taken place between the parties to this litigatiOn?"
(3.) WHETHER the application in question is tune-barred? Relief.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.