S.K.Mookherjee, J. - (1.) - The main appeal, in connection with which the present Cross-Objection had been preferred, had been disposed of but the Cross-Objection had been Left pending. The said appeal was directed against the Judgment, dated 18th December, 1982, of the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Howrah, in Title Suit No. 43 of 1980, passing a decree in terms of the award given by the Arbitrator and was at the instance of the defendant. The present Cross-Objection is at the instance of the plaintiff and the main point which has been agitated on behalf of the plaintiff is for default of the learned Judge and/or refusal by him to grant interest from the date of the decree till the date of realisation of the decreed amount.
(2.) THE Arbitration Award is dated 28.1.1982. THE said award was challenged on behalf, of the defendant under sections30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. THE plaintiff also preferred an application under section 17 of the Arbitration Act for making the award a rule of the Court arid a decree in terms of the award together with costs and interest upto the date of the decree and till recovery of the amount. By the impugned order, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the defendant's application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act and allowed the plaintiff's application under section 17 of the said Act by pronouncing judgment in terms of the award but did not record any order as regards the plaintiff's prayer for grant of interest from the date of the decree till the date of realisation of the amount. After the disposal of the appeal, the only point which we are called upon to consider in connection with the Cross-Objection, is whether the decree should have granted interest till the realisation of the amount as prayed for on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr. Roychowdhury, appearing in support of the Cross-Objection, as also Mr. Mitra, appearing in opposition thereto, have drawn our attention to various decisions of different High Courts as also of the Supreme Court in support of their respective contentions both on the technical aspect of their arguments as also on merit. Most of such decisions are concerned with the justification fear power of the court to grant interest and rate of such interest but in view of the position, which I shall presently narrate, we need not go into such questions for the present purpose. The entire Cross-Objection, in our view, can be disposed of on point of maintainability.
(3.) SECTION 29 of the Arbitration Act provides for grant of interest by Court till the date of realisation of the awarded amount. It is well settled that section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure strictly does have no application to arbitration proceedings. The plaintiff's application, which had stood rejected, was under section 17 of the said Act which provides for appeal from an order on such application only under two circumstances, namely, where the decree is not in accordance with, or, is in excess of the award. Therefore, the present order not allowing the plaintiff's prayer for interest would not be appealable. SECTION 39 of the aforesaid Act, which embodies provisions for appeal upon a proper reading, cannot apply in such a case. Therefore, the only provision which may come to the aid of the plaint in maintaining the present Cross-Objection, is Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits a Cross objection to be taken only with regard to the findings from which an appeal could have been taken. Since I have already indicated that the refusal and/or omission on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to grant interest, as prayed for by the plaintiff, is not appealable in view of the provisions of section 17, the present Cross-Objection, in our view is not maintainable and as such is liable to be dismissed.;