Bind Basni Prasad. J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal from an order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Saharanpur dismissing the judgment -debtor's objection that the application for the execution of the decree was premature.
(2.) THE relevant facts are that the judgment -debtor appellant and his father, the respondent, and his uncles referred a dispute about the partition of their properly to arbitration. On the January. 9, 1947, an award was given whereby the property was divided among the members of the family; but, as the appellant was allotted the property which was in excess of his share, he was required to pay a sum of Rs 7.000, to his father, Trilok Chand, the respondent by way of compensation. He was allowed a period of six mouths for paying this sum and no interest was to run for this period. It was, however, provided that if he did not pay the sum within six months, then the appellant Would be liable to pay interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. The appellant's uncles moved the court under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. for the filing of the award. On the November, 26,1947, the learned Civil Judge passed a decree in terms of the award. A certified copy of the decree is before us. The exact words in the decree are as follows; Let a decree be prepared according to the award under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. Parties shall bear their costs. On the March 29, 19, 48, the respondent applied for the recovery of Rs. 7,000 by the execution of the decree. The appellant objected and contended that the period of six months given by the award should be reckoned from the date of the decree, viz , the November, 26,1947, and not from the date of the award viz., the January, 9, 1947. Learned Civil Judge has held that the period should be counted from the date of the award and not from the date of the decree. The objection was, therefore, dismissed.
(3.) THE judgment -debtor comes in appeal and contends that the period of six months should have been reckoned from the date of the decree.;