- (1.) This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated August 11, 1975, whereby he dismissed the execution first appeal preferred by the appellant with costs.
(2.) Chhida Mal, appellant, stood surety for the repayment of a loan secured by the Palwal Shiam Oil Production-cum-Sales Co-operative Industrial Society, Palwal, (of which he was a member also) from the Gurgaon Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Gurgaon. The Society aforesaid did not repay the loan above said and the consequent dispute between the Bank and the Society was referred by the Registrar to Shri D.S. Bhatia who gave the award against the Society and Chhida Mal to pay certain amounts on account of loan interest, costs, etc. to the Bank. On their failure to pay the said amount, the Bank took out execution of the award and since Chhida Mal, appellant, had pledged certain property belonging to him for the payment of the loan, the said property was attached at the instance of the Bank during the execution proceedings. Thereupon, the appellant raised objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which were contested by the Bank, and the following issues were settled :- (1) Where the reference to arbitrator was invalid ? O.P.D. (2) Whether Registrar, Co-operative Societies was not competent to further refer the dispute to Shri D.S. Bhatia ? (3) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this case ? (4) Whether the objections covered by issue No. 3 cannot be raised and entertained now ? (5) Whether this award is not executable ? (6) Whether this arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings and to what effect ? (7) Whether objection covered by issue No. 6 can be raised in this Court ? (8) Relief. Even before the executing Court, the appellant only contested issue No. 5 and consequently all the other issues were decided against him. Even as regards issue No. 5, the finding of the executing Court was categorically against him and his objections were consequently dismissed, whereupon he preferred the execution first appeal which also stands dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) As before the learned Single judge so before us the learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to assail the finding on issue No. 5 and the affirmance thereof. With his illimitable fairness, Mr. J.N. Kaushal, appearing for the appellant, has stated that the only point herein is whether the award rendered's by itself a decree and, therefore, executable against the appellant. His stand was that it was not so, and it necessarily had to be made a rule of the Court to effectuate it.;