D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of F.A.O. No. 104 of 1959 and Civil Revision No. 453 of 1962.
(2.) THE dispute is between the brothers and it is unfortunate that they have been litigating right from the year 1937 and I hope that this decision will put a seal on their dispute. The earlier history of this dispute is fully set out in the decision of the Pepsu High Court in Gopi Chand v. Lal Chand AIR 1956 Pepsu 74 and therefore it is not necessary to cover that ground all over again. The arbitration agreement is dated the 10th May, 1937. The relevant part of that agreement reads thus: that according to Gopi Chand under the partition of 1930 the income of the land in village Mohammadpur Rurke and other dues have not been paid and about which a settlement is necessary. The same basis on which the dispute with Gopi Chand will be settled will be the basis as regards other parties to the partition, that is, the mother and Harish Chand. Format purpose they appointed their elder brother Lala Partap Chand as the arbitrator. In the second paragraph of the agreement, it is provided that the arbitrator will have the power to see that whatever is awarded to Gopi Chand is actually paid to him and the authority of the arbitrator will continue till the decision of the arbitrator has been enforced. The arbitrator gave his award on the 14th November; 1937, for Rs. 3,700/ -. With the consent of the parties, -the award was modified and the amount was reduced to Rs, 1,200/ - on the 28th November, 1937. Lal Chand had to pay this amount to Gopi Chand and this would according to the arbitration agreement furnish the basis for the determination of the rights of the mother as of the other brother. Unfortunately, this award was not made a rule of the Court with result that it remained a dead letter. In pursuance of the power given to the arbitrator in the second paragraph of the agreement, Gopi Chand invoked the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to determine the matter afresh. Notice of this determination was given by the arbitrator to Lal Chand, who scrupulously kept away from the arbitration proceedings in spite of service of notice with the result that, an ex parte award in the sum of Rs. 16,500/ - was made against Lal Chand on the 18th February, 1956. In this award the amount due to Gopi Chand from the year 1930 to the year 1947 was taken into account. On the 21st of March, 1956, Gopi Chand applied to the District Judge Patiala for making the award rule of the Court. Notice of this application was sent to Lai Chand. Lal Chand was served on the 5th May, 1956, and he appeared in Court on the 9th May, 1953, but filed no objections to the award. For the first time he filed objections to the award on the 7th June, 1956, and these objections were filed on the grounds given in Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. The objections were rejected as time barred and against this decision F.A.O. No. 104 of 1959 is pending in this Court and will be disposed of by this order.
(3.) ON the 18th August, 1956, Lal Chand made another application under Section 33 on the ground that the arbitration agreement had exhausted itself and the award of the arbitrator on the basis of that arbitration agreement was a nullity and therefore, it should be ignored. This application was dismissed in default on the 16th January, 1957. However, the petition was restored on his application on the 13th August, 1957, and the plea of the Respondent that the application was barred by time was negatived on the ground that the period of limitation for such an application was governed by Article 181 of the Indian Limitation Act. It was further held that the award was a nullity because the arbitration agreement had exhausted itself when the previous award was given and, therefore, the arbitrator bad no jurisdiction to give a second award. Against this decision, Civil Revision No. 453 of 1962 is before me and it will be disposed of by this order as well.;