Puppalla Ramulu vs Nagidi Appala Swami and Others

Chandra Reddy, J.—This is to revise the order of the District Munsif, Gudivada, dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner for passing a decree in terms of an award dated 01-03-1950. The circumstances that have culminated in this revision petition may briefly be stated:

There were some disputes between the Petitioner and Respondent 1 regarding the rent alleged to have been due to the Petitioner under a lease of a piece of land. The parties referred the matter to arbitration and an award was made on 4-3-1950 under which Respondent 1 had to give the Petitioner 14 bags of paddy.

The award was delivered to the present Petitioner. As Respondent 1 defaulted in complying with this term a suit SC 483 of 1950 was filed by the Petitioner in the Court of the District Munsif, Gudivada, for recovering the value of 14 bags ol paddy on the basis of the award. This was dismissed on the ground that the award was not embodied in a decree.

The application giving rise to this Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on 21-12-1951 for the relief mentioned above. The application was opposed chiefly on the plea that the petition was barred by reason of Article 178, Limitation Act. This objection found favour With the District Munsif and the petition was dismissed. This order is canvassed before me.

A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Narayana Rao for Respondent 1 that this C. R. P. is-incompetent as an appeal lies against the order under revision to the Sub-Court This is founded on. a ruling of the Madras High Court in Ponnusami Mudali v. Mandi Sundara Mudali, ILR 27 Mad 255 (FB) (A) and of Patna High Court in Jagdish Mahton and Others Vs. Sundar Mahton and Others, (B).

To understand the respective contentions of the parties, it is necessary to set out the relevant, provisions of law bearing on the subject. Article 178, Limitation Act prescribed a period of 90 days for filing into Court an award under the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940, limitation commencing to-, run from the date of service of notice of the regular award.

Section 14, Arbitration Act runs thus:

14 (1) When the arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and. charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award.

(2) The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them, to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. It is not necessary to refer to Sub-section (3) as it has no hearing.

The other section of the Arbitration Act. that is material is Section 17 which enacts;

Where the Court sees no cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award, the Court, shall after the time for making an application to set aside the award has expired, or such application having been made, after refusing it, proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award and upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow, and no appeal shall lie from such decree except on the ground that it is in excess of,, or not otherwise in accordance with, the award.

The first point for consideration is whether the application is one filed u/s 14(2) and Section 17 or only one under the latter section. u/s 14(2) if the arbitrators do not file the award the party can obtain an order of the Court directing the arbitrators to file the award. Can it be extended to a. case where the award is already in the Court, no doubt, in connection with some other proceeding?

In my opinion that section can apply only to, a case where the help of the Court is sought for getting the award into Court by calling upon the arbitrators to do it. No doubt, in this case, Section 14 is quoted and also a prayer is included for taking the award on file. To my mind, it appears to be, surplusage as the award was in Court and there; was nothing which the arbitrators could do further'', in the matter.

There can be little doubt that Article 178, Limitation Act applies to an application u/s 14(2), Arbitration Act. But the present case seem to fall u/s 17, Arbitration Act because the only re-, lief asked for is the passing of a decree on the-award. No appeal is provided in such an event uality unless it comes under any of the exceptions specified therein and the only remedy is a revision petition.

signed by the arbitrators and should also contain the particulars referred to in it.

The fact that the award came to the knowledge of the parties would not dispense with the necessity of service of notice in order to invoke the penalty of dismissal under Article 178, Limitation Act.

This view of mine is reinforced by a number of decided cases. In Jai Kishen v. Ramlal Gupta, AIR 1944 Lah 398 (D), Abdur Kaliman J. took the view that notice in writing in the manner prescribed in S. 14(1) was absolutely necessary and limitation would start to run from that date. The view taken by the High Courts of Patna in Jagdish Mahton and Others Vs. Sundar Mahton and Others, (B) and of Allahabad in Misri Lal and Another Vs. Bhagwati Prasad, (E) and L. Ganga Ram Vs. L. Radha Kishan, (F) accords with this principle.

Thus, the period of limitation prescribed in Article 178 begins to run only from the date of service of notice laid down in Section 14(1), Arbitration Act. Admittedly this was not done in this case. It follows that the Petitioner is not debarred from asking for the relevant reliefs by reason of Article 178 and the view of the trial Court is erroneous. As the District Munsif failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law on an erroneous impression that Article 178 stood in the way of his giving any relief, I will be justified in interfering with that order and setting it aside.

The Code of Criminal Procedure is therefore allowed. The O. P. should be remanded to the lower Court for fresh disposal according to law. The parties will bear their own costs throughout.