K.S.LODHA, J. - (1.) OMPRAKASH and others have filed this application for revision against the order of District Judge, Ganganagar dated December 7, 1981 by which an award made by the arbitrator was remitted to him for reconsideration The short facts giving rise to this revision are that there was a partnership firm of the parties. Some disputes arose in connection with the working of that firm and the partners appointed Shri Babulal Kothari and Shri Sushil Beyani as arbitrators. The arbitrators after hearing the parties filed their award in the court of the learned District Judge on August 19, 1980 after notice to the parties. The present non -pititioners raised certain objections to the award and urged that the award may not be made the rule of the court but should be set aside or remitted for reconsideration. At the time of hearing of these objections only one objection was pressed by them and that was to the effect that according to the submission (reference to arbiration) dated January 12, 1980 the arbitrators were required to completely dissolve and wind up the firm, discharge the liability and then to distribute the assets between the partners but instead of doing this the arbitrators directed that all the assets of the firm except a Nohara shall be retained by the nonpetitioners and the liabilities of the firm shall also be paid by them and that the other party would be paid a fixed amount named by the arbitrators and thus they have exceeded their jurisdiction and, therefore the award cannot be made a rule of the court. After hearing the parties the learned District Judge accepted this objection and remitted the award as stated above, by his order dated December 17, 1981. Omprakash and others have come up in revision against that order.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record, A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the non -petitioners that this revision is not maintainable because the order of remit does not amount to a case decided as has been held in Zaralbibi v. Shamsuddin A.I.R. 1946 Sindh 141. He further urged that the order of remit can be challenged in an appeal which may ultimately have to be filed against the decision of the learned District Judge when the award is again filed before him and in these circumstances the petitioner would not suffer any irreparable injury and the present order would not occasion any failure of justice and, therefore also the revision is not maintainable. In this connection he placed reliance on Major S.S. Khan v. Brig. F.J. Dhillan AIR 1984 SC 497, Balodeodas Shivlai and Ors. v. Filmstan Distributors : [1970]1SCR435 . Reference was also made by him to the authorities reported in Mohinder Kaur v. Bhagram Parithita v. Sita Devi AIR. 1971 Orissa 204 and Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra : 1978CriLJ165 In reply to this objection the learned Counsel for the non -petitioner urged that as the learned court below has remitted the award on the ground that the arbitrators should have disposed of the assets of the firm, discharged the liabilities and then the remaining assets should have been disturbed by him bet ween the partners. This order amounts to a case decided and if it is allowed to stand it will occasion failure of justice in as much as before the appeal which may finally be brought before this court the assets of the firm will have already be disposed of. He placed reliance upon Narain Sonaji v. Shesharo Vithoba AIR 1948 Nagpur 258, Jupiter Chit Fund v. Dwarika Dish Dayal AIR 1980 All 771. During the course of the arguments in respect of this preliminary objection the learned counsel for the non -petitioners was fair enough to bring to my notice a decision of this Court in Ghewarchand v. Gajsingh ana others (reported in 1980 Weekly Law Notes 373) and has urged that although this court in a single Bench Authority has interpreted the term 'any order' in a wide manner, the view does not seem to be in consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(3.) IN my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of this case this preliminary objection need not detain us because on a consideration of the merits of the order sought to be challenged in this revision I am of the opinion that this order does tend to decide or at least affect the controversy between the parties about the disposal of the assets and liabilities of the firm and, therefore, if amounts to a case decided even according to the authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel for the non -petitioners himself. The further question of course is whether this court should interfere with or reverse or modify this order in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in view of the conditions laid down by Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso added to Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and for that purpose a consideration of the merits of the order would be necessary.;