- (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal brought against an order of Mr- Pritam Singh Jain Senior subordinate Judge, Hissar, setting aside an award which was passed in favour oc the plaintiff in a suit brought against the defendants.
(2.) ON 3-11-1949 the plaintiff, a Joint Hindu family firm through Kunj Lal, Managing proprietor, brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 12000/-and rendition of accounts against Narsang Das and his two sons Hazari Lal and Durga Dat, proprietors of firm Gobind Ram Narsang Das carrying on business at Ganga Nagar in Bikaner State. Of the defendants only Narsang Das appeared and proceedings were 'ex parte' against his two sons. An objection was raised that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. On 23-10-1950 there was a reference to arbitration of one Badrl Narain Mahajan of Hissar of the whole dispute. This application for reference was signed on behalf of the plaintiff firm by kunj Lal and his Advocate and by Narsang Das defendant and his Advocate Mr. Mahabir parshad. Statements of the parties were also recorded and were signed by Kunj Lal, Narsang Das and their respective counsel. On 30-11-1950, an award was made for Rs. 19,044/11/- against all the defendants. On 29-12-1950, two sets of objections were filed, one by the father and the other by the two sons. The sons pleaded that the father had no authority on their behalf and that there was no notice to them to appear ana the lather pleaded that there was no reference on behalf of the sons and both of them pleaded that as all the parties Interested were not parties to the reference; it was void 'ab initio'.
(3.) IN para. 9 of the plaint the plaintiffs asked the defendants to render accounts and to pay the money. In para 10 of the plaint it was alleged that the defendants lived in India. In the relief clause a decree was asked for against the defendants as individuals and there was no claim against the firm as such. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the reference was only on behalf of the father and not on behalf of all the three defendants, that the reference was in accordance with Section 21, arbitration Act, that there was no joint Hindu family of the defendants, that the reference by the father was in his individual capacity and not as the head of the firm and that although the plaintiff had applied to strike out the names of defendants 2 and 3 on 15-2-1951 it could not be allowed at that stage and as the award was against all the defendants it was bad and therefore it was set aside. The plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court.;