- (1.) THIS appeal arises out of a matter in arbitration with the intervention of the court in a pending suit. The facts briefly are that the plaintiff brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 8,685-6-0. On 13-8-1953 parties agreed to refer the matter to arbitration and reference was made by the Court to two arbitrators, Panna Lal and ishar Das, who were directed to file their award by 28-10-1953 (the date 23-81953 given in the judgment of the learned Single Judge is wrong ). It was also agreed that in case of difference of opinion between the arbitrators, Nagar Mal would act as the umpire.
(2.) THE arbitrators failed to put in their award by the date fixed, namely, 28-101953, but proceedings were taken before them on 16-11-1953. On that date it was agreed between the parties that the evidence in the case would be produced later in the day and, therefore, the proceedings were adjourned till 8 p. m. At that time Ishar Das arbitrator who had been appointed by the plaintiff did not turn up, nor did the plaintiff come. Panna Lal arbi-trator and the defendants appeared. On a telephonic enquiry Ishar Das said that his wife was ill and that he would not be able to deal with the arbitration matter until 25-11-1953 which was the extended date fixed for the filing of the award. Panna Lal accordingly sent an application to the Court asking for an extension of the date; but on the same date Ishar Das sent an award to the Court whereby he held that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 8,000/ -. There was also an application by Ishar Das in which the allegation was that he and Panna Lal had not been able to agree in the matter of arbitration.
(3.) THE Court held an enquiry into this matter and came to the conclusion that ishar Das had been guilty of misconduct and that the award which he had filed was not a genuine award because he did not even know of its contents. He thereupon superseded the reference and proceeded to enquire into the case himself. The concluding portion of his order sets out the reasons for superseding the reference and may be quoted here - "taking all the circumstances into consideration in this case I am inclined to hold that this is a fit case in which arbitration be superseded. The suit was instituted on 30-10-1952, considerable time has elapsed and still it is pending. One of the arbitrators has been found guilty of misconduct and if another arbitrator is appointed by the plaintiff in his place under section 8 of the Act, then he and Shri Panna Lal arbitrators will have to sit together. Shri Panna Lal resides at Delhi and I do not think that the said two arbitrators are likely to dispose of the matter in difference before them in a speedy manner. Again, if there is difference of opinion between the arbitrators, which is likely to be, then the matter shall have to be referred to the umpire. I am, therefore, inclined to hold that in the interest of justice and in the speedy disposal of this old case it is necessary that no more arbitrator be appointed as provided under section 8 and the arbitration be superseded. ";