- (1.) UNDER a registered agreement dated 16th november, 1970 made between the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners and the opposite parties, two persons named, chiranjilal Jhunjhunwalla and Jagdish Roy Gupta, were appointed as Arbitrators. After the said Arbitrators had made their award, sagarmal Patsaria (since deceased), the predecessor-in-interest of the present opposite parties, had filed in the Subordinate Judge's court, Asansol, an application praying for a direction upon the learned arbitrators to file their award along with the depositions and documents by the date fixed by the court and for passing a judgment and decree in terms of the said Award. The said application was made in substance under sub section (2) of section 14 of the Arbitration act, 1940 and the same was registered as Title Suit No. 20 of 1971.
(2.) ON 29th October, 1971 the said Arbitrators filed their Award in the court below. Thereupon, the opposite party nos. 4 to 6 of their suit, had filed an application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. It appears that the said application was, however not registered as a separate Misc. Case. The opposite parties' said application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act had been pending and the court has as yet passed no judgment and decree upon the aforesaid Arbitration award. On 19th March 1981, the defendant no. 1, Kamala Prasad, the predecessor-in-interest of the opposite parties 16 to 19 of this revisional Application, died. On 19th May, 1984 the plaintiffs in title Suit No. 20 of 1971 (opposite party nos. 1 to 9 herein) made an application before the learned Assistant District Judge Asansol for bringing on record for ends of justice the heirs of the deceased defendant No. 1. The opposite party no. 6 in the court below opposed the said application, inter alia, on the ground of limitation. According to him, more than three years having passed from the date of the defendant no. 1, prayer for substitution of the heirs of the defendant no. 1 was based under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The remaining opposite parties in the court below did not, however, contest the plaintiff's prayer for substituting the heirs of the defendant no. l.
(3.) BY his order complained of in this Revisional Application, the learned Assistant District 3udg;e has allowed the prayer for bringing on record the heirs of the deceased defendant no. 1.;