HIDAYATULLAH, - (1.) THE following Judgment of the courtwas delivered by:
(2.) THIS appeal by special leavehas been filed by one Munshi Ram, a Judgment-debtor, against whom a decree based on acompromise, following an award by an arbitrator,is sought to be executed. The respondents are thedecree-holders. The appeal is directed against, acommon judgment and decrees of the Punjab HighCourt dated 26/11/1952, in two appealsunder the Letters Patent (Nos. 5 and 11 of 1952)by which the orders of a learned single Judge ofthe High court in Execution First Appeals Nos. 56and 121 of 1951 were confirmed. The presentappeal is, however, confined to the decision inL.P.A.No 11 of 1952. To understand what theseorders were, and also the point involved in thisappeal, a somewhat long narration of facts isnecessary. The following genealogy gives therelationship of the parties : JUDGEMENT_903_AIR(SC)_1962Image1.jpg Munshi Ram was adopted by Mangalsain, when theformer was five or six years old. Mangalsain wasseparate from the other Branch. There was a firm known as Kanhaiyalal & Sons,consisting of Kanhaiyalal and his two sons. Theaffairs of the firm fell on evil days. We are,however, not concerned with it. Munshi Ram had, onthis other hand, stated another concern by thename of 'Munshi Ram, B.Sc.', and that concernprospered. It appears that the respondents in thisappeal claimed to be partners in that business.With the merits of their claim we are not againconcerned. On 30/10/1946, there was anagreement between the contending parties, by whichthe dispute was referred to the sole arbitrationof one Lala Premnath, Advocate. Lala Premnath gavean award on 3/03/1947, by which he awardedRs.50,000.00 payable to Faqir Chand as follows :(a) Rs.15,000.00 on 4/04/1947.(b) balance in three equal instalments on 4/08/19 4/12/1947 and 4/03/1948.Interest on any instalment defaulted at0-8-0 per cent per mensem until payment.He also awarded Rs.45,000.00 payable to Banwarilal asfollows :(a) Rs.15,000.00 on 4/04/1947.(b) balance in three equal instalments onthe same dates as above with interest inthe same way on default.There was also an award about the residentialhouse called haveli, which was given in moietiesto Faqir Chand and Banwarilal, including theportion built by Munshi Ram. The rest of theimmovable property was given to Munshi Ram as hisself-acquired property, and it was declared thatFaqir Chand and Banwarilal would have noconnection with or claim in the concern, 'MunshiRam, B.Sc.'.
(3.) NO action appears to have been taken for sometime. But on 4/04/1947, Rs.15,000.00 were paidto Banwarilal. On the request of Faqir Chand madeon December 17, 1947, the arbitrator filed anapplication under s.14(2) of the Arbitration Act,on 6/01/1948. With this application, heproduced a signed copy of the award. It may bepointed out that the original award has not beenproduced, and is said to be lost. On 19/02/1948, the stamp Auditor reported that according tothe endorsement on the copy of the award, theoriginal was written on a stamp paper of the valueof Rs.50.00, and that there was a deficiency ofRs.662- 8-0. He recommended that the award beimpounded. The Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepore,ordered that the report would be considered, whenthe document would be produced. On July 11, 1948, Munshi Ram made anapplication for setting aside the award on thefollowing, among other, grounds: (a) that theaward was insufficiently stamped; and (b) that theaward was not registered. He also alleged that theArbitrator was guilty of legal misconduct, andthat the award was given beyond time. Theseobjections were replied to by the respondents.Meanwhile, it appears that there was some furthersettlement, and the parties stated that they wereprepared to have a decree passed in accordancewith the terms accepted by them. By an order dated 18/10/1948, the court passed a decree on theaward, modifying terms of the award according tothe compromise. The objections of the StampAuditor as well as other objections were notconsidered.;