Rahim-un-Nissa and Others vs Ummi Fazl

Sir John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Knox, J.—An agreement of reference having been entered into between certain parties, the arbitrator appointed by that agreement made his award. Musammat Rahim-un-nissa, one of the persons interested in the award, applied to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur to have the award filed in Court. The application was made under s. 525 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In her application she also asked that a decree should be passed according to the award in her favor against the defendants, who were other parties to the arbitration. On the 13th of November 1889, the Subordinate Judge delivered a judgment and made a decree. So far as the filing of the award is concerned, it appears to us that that was a good order, but that we need not consider, as there is no appeal from an order directing an award to be filed. So far as that decree purports to be a decree under s. 522 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was appealable if it was in excess of, or not in accordance with, the award. The decree was as follows:-- "It is decreed and ordered that the plaintiff''s claim be decreed with costs. The costs incurred by the defendants be borne by themselves except the defendant Zahur Muhammad, who shall get his costs from the plaintiffs. The plaintiff to get her whole costs from Musammat Ummi Fazl, the answering defendant. The rest of the defendants are exempted from the costs incurred by the plaintiff." That is not a decree as contemplated by s. 522 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A decree in general terms of that kind does not comply with that section. A Judge when proceeding under s. 522 of the Code to give judgment and make a decree, must give a judgment according to the award; that is, he must state in his judgment what his construction of the award is as to the rights and interests of the parties. He must say, for instance, that under the award the plaintiff is entitled to mauza A, the defendant is entitled to mauza B, and so on, and, hiving given that judgment, the decree must be drawn up in accordance with that judgment; that is, it must be a decree dealing with the specific rights of the parties, and not merely decreeing the plaintiff''s claim in general terms, as was done here. When a decree so framed upon the judgment has been drawn up, the question whether an appeal would lie from it would depend on whether it was in excess of, or not in accordance with, the award. In the case of a decree in general terms, such as that in this case, a Court has no opportunity of judging whether the decree is in excess of the award. Certainly it is not in accordance with the award, because it defines specifically no rights and interests whatsoever. Errors of this kind by judicial officers would probably not arise if those officers, before proceeding under a particular section, took the trouble to read the section carefully, in order to ascertain what was the procedure the law required them to follow. We must set aside, as we do, the decree of the 13th November 1889, so far as it purports to be anything beyond an order for filing the award. We express no opinion on the merits of this case. The appeal is allowed on the one ground which we have considered. The other grounds, in the view which we take of this case do not at present arise. We remand the case under s. 562 of the CPC to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, and direct him to dispose of the suit according to law. The costs of this appeal will be costs in the cause.