Kotha Appa Rao vs M. Mohammad Haneef

Horwill, J.—A reference was made to arbitration in a suit. The award was received on the day when, the Court re-opened after the summer

vacation. The pleaders for the parties were present in Court and the plaintiff at once expressed his intention of accepting the award; but in the

absence of the defendant, the defendant''s pleader asked for an adjournment, which was refused. Upon his reporting no instructions, the award

was accepted and a decree passed at once.

Even for arbitration in suits, the general rules relating to arbitration proceedings have to be followed as far as possible; so that it is necessary for

an arbitrator to inform the parties that he, has made the award; and it is the duty of the Court u/s 14(2) of the Act upon receiving the award, to

inform the parties of its having been filed. Since the plead ers who represented the parties were present, we may take it that this direction was

complied with by the District Munsif by informing the pleaders that it had been filed. The Court, however, had no right to pass the decree

forthwith. Not apparently having found any reason for remitting the award or any part of it for reconsideration, it was its duty to pass a decree only

after the time for making an application to set aside the award had expired. That period was thirty days under the Schedule to the Act. No time

having been given at all, the decree was clearly passed without jurisdiction.

The petition is allowed and the suit remanded to the trial Court for dismissal after giving fresh notice to the parties and allowing thirty days to

intervene before passing a decree to permit of the filing of an application to set aside the award. The costs of this petition will abide the result.