N.N.Mithal, J. - (1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of certain amount which was due to the plaintiff from the defendant under an award said to have been given by the Arbitrators in a dispute of accounts between the parties.
(2.) THE suit of the plaintiff in brief was that the plaintiff and the defendant, who are brothers, were carrying on business in the name of M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Ved Prakash at Kanpur which was a registered firm. A dispute arose between the parties and, therefore, the matter was referred to the arbitration of Lalla Raliya Ram and Banarsi Das for deciding the matter through arbitration. THE arbitrators went through the accounts of the firm and heard the parties and gave their award on 4th May 1966. THE award was accepted by the parties and in token of their acceptance they had put their signatures on the award. It is said that the award given by the arbitrators was in the nature of an agreement between the parties. According to the award, a sum of Rs. 24,278.15 became payable to the plaintiff by the defendant which was payable in instalments out of which Rs. 16,300/- was paid to the plaintiff on various dates, leaving a balance of Rs. 7,978.15 and Rs. 544.65 as interest for late payment of the instalments, totalling a sum of Rs. 8,532.80. It was further alleged in the plaint that according to the award the defendant was not entitled to carry on any business of the dissolved partnership in the name of M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Ved Prakash. Since the defendant did not comply with that term of the award and was still carrying on business in that name, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from carrying on any business in the name and style of M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Ved Prakash and also for the recovery of Rs. 8,532.80. The defendant contested the suit and according to him the suit was not maintainable and that there was no award by the arbitrators on 4-5-1966, According to the case of the defendant the arbitrators had given their award on 20th April 1966 orally and in terms of the award the parties had started acting upon. It was under the oral instruction of the arbitrators that the defendant paid the amount to the plaintiff but not under the alleged award dated 4-5-1966. It was contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to enforce the award dated 4-5-1966 as the same had not been made rule of the court and could not be enforced through a decree of the court. It was also contended that the award dated 4-5-1966 was never given and the defendant's signatures had been obtained on blank stamp papers, that he was, not pre- sent at Amritsar where the award was given on that date and that the written award dated 4-5-1966 was not the same as was orally told to the parties on 20-4-1966.
(3.) FROM the above narration of facts, it would be seen that the main contention between the parties was as to whether the award was made in writing on 4-5-1966 or there had been a prior oral award at Amritsar on 20-4-1966.;