D.P.Uniyal - (1.) THIS is a revision against an order of the Civil Judge, Kanpur, dated 25-8-55 setting aside the order of the Munsif dated 23-10-53 by which he passed a decree in terms of the award.
(2.) THE facts of the case are these. THE parties to the dispute are alleged to have entered into an arbitration agreement to refer their disputes to certain named arbitrators. THE arbitrators gave an award which was signed by both the parties. THEreafter; an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act was filed in the court of the Munsif by one of the arbitrators with a prayer that the award be made the rule of the court. Notices were issued to the parties concerned and the opposite parties thereupon tiled objections to the award. One of the objections raised was that the arbitration agreement had been obtained by fraud and further that the same was bad on account of vagueness. The learned Munsif found that the opposite parties had signed the arbitration agreement and the allegation of fraud by them had not been substantiated. He further held that the reference to arbitration was not vague and that the award and the reference should be read together in order to ascertain the disputes between the parties. In his opinion the evidence in the case disclosed that the disputes between the parties had been fully made clear to the arbitrators who after examining the evidence had made the award which was also signed by the parties. He was also of the opinion that it was not open to the opposite parties to challenge the agreement of reference as that was a matter which the court could not properly adjudicate upon while considering the objection as to the validity of the award.
(3.) THE learned Civil Judge in appeal set aside the order of the Munsif on the ground that the agreement of reference was bad for indefiniteness, and that the disputes between the parties had not been clearly mentioned in the said agreement.;