Gyandera Kumar, J. - (1.) This is a revision by the defendants against the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby they upheld the award dated 19 -2 -1965, with a modification relating to future interest
(2.) The admitted or proved facts are that the parties entered into a hire -purchase agreement dated 14 -11 -1962 (paper No. Kha -11) in respect of new Dodge motor truck, 1962 model, owned by the plaintiff opposite parties. The hire -purchase agreement was for Rs. 27,612/ -, which the defendants were to pay to the plaintiffs in 23 monthly installments. Clauses 16 (b) and (c) of the agreement that be reproduced below with advantage: "16. (b) All disputes, differences or claims arising out of and in connection with this agreement shall "be referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Mangal Sen Tandon. Chowk, Lucknow or his nominee or in event of their refusal Shri Ram Narain Mehrotra at Lucknow under the provision of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940 or any statutory modifications thereof. The award of the arbitration shall be final and binding on all the parties concerned. The arbitrator shall be bound to give his award within the provisions of this agreement. His terms of reference will be strictly governed by the terms of this agreement and the Arbitrator shall not question the validity of the same. The notices sent by the Arbitrator to parties by Registered post at the addresses mentioned in the Agreement will be considered as sufficient service on the parties, whether such notices are received by them or not or refused. (c) It has been expressly explained to us that the said Arbitrator is usually appointed an arbitrator in the other hire -purchase cases accepted by the owners, and being their own man is likely to be interested in the owners, but in spite of this information supplied to us, we have willingly agreed to the nomination of the said arbitrator because the owners are agreeable to enter into this agreement on this condition only." Disputes arose between the parties in respect of certain installments as well as regarding the truck itself, which was ultimately returned by the defendants to the plaintiff Company on 10 -10 -1963. The Company resold the same on 5 -6 -64 on hire -purchase system to a third party for Rs. 26,000/ -. On August 22,1964 the plaintiffs served a notice demanding Rs. 12,106.47P. from the defendants. On their failure to make any payment, the plaintiff Company on 13 -10 -64 referred their claim to the arbitrator, who, after giving notice to both the parties, fixed 14 -11 -64 for hearing of the case. However, on 14 -11 -64 the arbitrator found that the registered acknowledgment of one of the defendants had not been received back. So he fixed 3 -12 -64 for the next hearing. On 3 -12 -64 the defendants put in appearance and asked for another date whereupon the arbitrator fixed 10 -12 -1964 for the next hearing. On December 10, 1964, due to heavy rains, none of the parties could attend and at their instance the arbitrator adjourned the case to 7 -1 -1965. However, on 2 -1 -1965, the defendants filed their objections by post which were received by the arbitrator on January 4, 1965. On 7 -1 -1965 both the parties put in appearance but the arbitrator reached the place at 3 -30 p.m. by which time the parties had left, after a long wait. So the arbitrator fixed 28 -1 -1965 at 3 -30 p.m. for the next hearing of the case. On 20 -1 -1965 the defendants sent a letter intimating their withdrawal from arbitration, as they had no faith in the arbitrator. The arbitrator thereupon proposed to proceed ex parte, but informed the defendants by registered post of the next date of hearing, which was 18 -2 -1965. On 16 -2 -1965 the defendants sent yet another letter to the arbitrator reiterating then withdrawal from arbitration on the ground intimated earlier. On 19 -2 -1965 the arbitrator gave an ex parte written award, decreeing the plaintiffs' claim for Rs. 9,500/ - with pendente lite and future interest On 16 -3 -1965 the plaintiffs applied to the arbitrator to file his award in the Court of the Civil Judge, Lucknow. The arbitrator filed his award accordingly. On receipt of notice from the Civil Judge, the defendants on September 10, 1965 filed an application under Sec. 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act before the Civil Judge, Lucknow, praying for setting aside the award on various grounds. The Civil Judge by his judgment dated 13 -11 -1965 rejected the application filed by the defendants and made the award a rule of the Court, except to the extent that future interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum granted by the arbitrator was set aside.
(3.) Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment of the Civil Judge, the defendants went up in appeal before the District Judge, Lucknow, who dismissed the appeal with costs and affirmed the judgment of the Civil Judge. Hence this revision by the defendants.;