Beas Construction Board vs Krishan Chand Chuni Lal

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—A preliminary objection has been taken by the Registry that the court fee paid in this appeal is insufficient. The appeal, although described by the Appellant as one against the judgment and decree of the learned single Judge, has in fact been filed u/s 39(vi) of the Arbitration Act and is an appeal against an order refusing to set aside an award. It is not an appeal against a decree. In our opinion, it is Article 9 of the Second Schedule of the Himachal Pradesh Court Fees Act, 1968, which is attracted. That Article relates to a memorandum of appeal when the appeal is not from a decree or an order having the force of a decree. Clearly, the present appeal is not from a decree. It is also not from an order having the force of a decree. Section 17 of the Arbitration Act empowers the court to make an order refusing to set aside an award. Thereafter the court proceeds to pronounce judgment according to the award, and upon the judgment so pronounced a decree follows. Two distinct stages are envisaged, the making of an order refusing to set aside an award and the pronouncing of the judgment in accordance with the award upon which a decree follows. In the circumstances, the order refusing to set aside the award cannot be treated as an order having the force of a decree. If that was so, it would not have been necessary for Section 17 to provide that a decree shall follow.

It appears that the court fee paid is sufficient. The objection raised by the Registry is over-ruled.