A.K. Kirty, J. - (1.) The Appellants made an application Under Rule 137(ii) of the Rules framed under the U.P. Co -operative Societies Act (Act II of 1912). An award was made in (favour of the Appellant on 8th January, 1966. Under that award a sum of Rs. 27,313. 37p. was payable by the Respondent to the Appellant. An application for execution was made in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Shanjahanpur. The Respondent judgment debtor filed a number of objections Under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court below upheld these objections and held that the award in question was without jurisdiction and invalid and therefore, the application for execution of the same was not legally maintainable. The application for execution accordingly was dismissed.
(2.) On behalf of the Appellant it has been urged before us that the judgment and decree of the court below are manifestly erroneous in law and cannot be maintained. It was argued that the court below, which acting as execution court, acted in excess of jurisdiction by going into matters which it was not entitled to go into as an executing court. In our opinion, the arguments are well sustained.
(3.) In order to appreciate the controversy between this parties it will be necessary to mention the nature of the objections taken in the court, below (sic) the Respondent. The first objection was that the award itself was without jurisdiction and a nullity and therefore, it could not be legally executed. The second point taken was that the arbitrator Sri. M.A. Rizvi was an officer of the Sahkari Samiti in question; and as such, he could not be appointed as an arbitrator and the award given by Sri Rizvi is without jurisdiction and a nullity because legally he could neither be appointed as an arbitrator nor could act as such. In regard to the second objection, however it may be mentioned that, from, a perusal of the judgment of the Court below it appears that what was actually submitted, on behalf of the Respondent in the court below was that Sri Rizvi being an officer of the Co -operative Department should not have been appointed as, an arbitrator and that the reference, to Sri Rizvi as an arbitrator was done in violation of the principles of natural justice. This contention was repelled by the court below. The relevant part of the judgment of the court below dealing with this question runs thus: The objector has also, challenged the award on the ground that the arbitrator, Sri Rizvi, was an Officer of the Co -operative Department and it was against the principle of natural justice to refer the dispute for arbitration to such a person and further the, award was made without any notice to the objector. Now as regards the first contention, it appears to carry no force when the Act itself provides for the reference of the dispute to such an officer for arbitration. As regards the other contention the same relates only to procedural defect and cannot be raised separately at this stage.;