- (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 52 of the Judicature Ordinance (10 of 2006) against the judgment of a Single Bench of this Court dismissing a petition for revision brought by the Appellant. The parties to this case are brothers, between whom disputes regarding property are going on for the last three decades. In 1930, they and their brothers got their joint property partitioned through arbitration. Disputes regarding mesne profits of certain properties again arose between Lal Chand and Gopi Chand. This they referred to a sole arbitrator, Shri Pratap Chand, another brother of theirs, by means of an agreement dated 10 -5 -1937. Shri Pratap Chand gave his award on 14 -11 -1937. It was read out to the parties and a copy of it was given to each of them that day. This award was, however, amended by the arbitrator on 28 -11 -1937 and the amount of mesne profits allowed to Gopi Chand was reduced from Rs. 3700/ - to Rs. 1200/ -. The amended award was signed by both Lal Chand and Gopi Chand and thus they had due notice of it on 28 -11 -1937. The present dispute relates to this award alone. The parties did not institute any proceedings in Court in connexion with this award for several years, neither to get it set aside nor did to have it make a rule of the Court. On 7 -3 -1949, that is more than eleven years after the award, Lai Chand Respondent brought an application under Section 33, Patiala Arbitration Act, 2002 Bk. (hereinafter mentioned as the Act), for obtaining a declaration that the award, as amended on 28 -11 -1937, was invalid and liable to be set aside. It may be mentioned here that this local Act is almost a verbatim copy of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Sub Judge Patiala, to whom the application was presented, dismissed it with costs holding that it was hopelessly barred by time. The order of the Sub Judge is dated 8 -7 -1949. As a result of this order, a Memorandum of Costs showing the costs awarded to Gopi Chand was prepared. On 1 -12 -1950, Gopi Chand Appellant presented an application under Section 17 of the Act for "enforcement of the award"; obviously meaning thereby for obtaining a judgment of the Court according to the award and followed by a decree. This application was dismissed for default on 24 -2 -1951.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the above application Gopi Chand presented another application on 18 -1 -1951 stating that, on dismissal of Lal Chand's application under Section 33 for setting aside the award, the Court ought to have drawn up a decree -sheet instead of merely preparing a Memorandum of Costs and prayed that a regular decree -sheet be prepared. The learned Sub Judge, vide his order dated 22 -2 -1952, accepted this application and directed a decree -sheet to be prepared. Notice of this application, on the first' day of its hearing, was directed to be given to Lai Chand, but since the requisite fee was not deposited no notice was actually issued or served, and the entire proceedings went on in Lal Chand's absence. Curiously enough, the de -. Cree sheet prepared in compliance with the order is not' only contained the verdict of Shri Pratap Chand in the last arbitration but also enumerated I the property that fell to Gopi Chand's share in the earlier award of 1930.
(3.) GOPI Chand Appellant took out execution: and it was then that Lai Chand came to now of the decree. He took exception to the execution, and also presented a separate application under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure for cancellation of the order dated 22 -2 -1952, on the ground that it was without Jurisdiction, illegal and obtained on the basis of misrepresentations at his back and without any; notice having been issued to him. The learned trial Judge accepted this application and set aside his own previous order dated' 22 -2 -1952, holding that it was invalid and wholly unmentionable. The order is dated 24 -6 -1952, Gopi Chand came in revision against this order,; which was dismissed. Hence this appeal on at' certificate granted by the learned Judge of this' Court. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length and find no force in the appeal. It is now well settled that the Court not only has the inherent power but also the duty to correct injustice and set aside its previous illegal and unauthorised judgment or order. This is exactly what the Sub Judge did in this case by -his order in question. Shri Dalip Chand, learned Counsel for the Appellant, expresses his inability to support the Sub Judge's order dated 22 -2 -1952. Undoubtedly, it was illegal and passed without jurisdiction. While dismissing the application of Lai Chand the Court refused to set aside the award, but did nothing further. It did not pronounce judgment according to the award, and no decree therefore followed. A judgment, which is to be written one and pronounced in open Court, contains the rea sons for adjudication of the rights of the parties, while in the decree only the final adjudication is to be embodied. The decree is something distinct from the judgment and is merely the result thereof. The decree follows the judgment and is to be prepared in accordance with it. The decree is to specify clearly the relief granted by, or other determination arrived at in, the judgment. It is simply un -understandable that there can be a decree without a judgment.;