The State of Bihar vs Fuleni Devi and Others

P.K. Deb, J.—Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 11.4.2000 passed by Sub-Judge-1, Saran, at Chapra in Misc. Case No. 25 of 1992.

That order relates to dismissal of the objection being raised under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act regarding award being filed by the Arbitrator for making rule of the Court in respect of agreement No. 69 F2 of 1978-79. It appears on perusal of the records of the case and also of the impugned order that there were two agreements regarding the same nature of construction work with the Respondents-contractors by the State of Bihar. One was 62 F2 of 1978-79 and the other is the present one i.e. 69 F2 of 1978-79. In respect of agreement No. 62 F2 of 1978-79 there was objections, civil revisions etc. and Misc. case No. 19 of 1983 and there was also payment on 25.3.1981 in respect of agreement No. 62. But in the objection being filed in the present award from the side of the State it was stated that payment had already been made in respect of the present agreement i.e. agreement No. 69 F2 of 1978-79 on 25.3.1981 without objection and, as such, the case is totally time barred regarding application for appointment of Arbitrator etc. There was also plea that when the earlier Misc. case had ended then the present Misc. Case is also time barred under the principle of res judicata. The trial Court held that the earlier Misc. case No. 19 of 1983 had arisen out of the agreement No. 62 F2 of 1978-79 and not in respect of the agreement No. 69 of 1978-79 and, as such, the question of res judicata does not arise. Although this point has been raised regarding payment on 25.3.1981 in the original objection being filed under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act from the side of the Appellant but no decision has been given or discussion has been made in the impugned order. Practically, that is the only grievance that has been put-forward before this Court by the learned Counsel for the State.

It has been submitted that when a plea has been taken in the objection under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act as filed on 28.8.1995 that payment was made in respect of agreement in question on 25.3.1981 and when in the rejoinder filed by the Respondents nothing specifically has been stated and denial has been made specifically on that averment then the statement made from the side of the State Officials remained unchallenged and the learned Court below had committed error in not considering that fact.

Mr. M.N. Parbat, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the Respondents has drawn my attention to a subsequent petition filed from the side of the State Officials, which was in Hindi, and conjoint reading of paragraphs-7 and 8 of the petition filed on 26.5.1993 rather specifically show that payment on 25.3.1981 was made to the attorney of the Respondents in respect of agreement No. 62 F2 of 1978-79 and not in respect of the present agreement. When objection raised under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act regarding payment of those agreements has been clarified by the subsequent petition dated 26.5.1993 then there remains no case of the State officials as payment has been made in respect of the agreement No. 62 F2 of 1978-79 on 25.3.1981. For that reason, the learned Court below has not considered that aspect of the matter or the purpose of limitation.

Thus, on going through the impugned order and the contention made before me, I find that the learned Court below has considered all aspects of the objections in its proper perspective as contemplated under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act from the side of the State officials and passed the impugned order. There is nothing irregularity/illegality in the impugned order passed. Hence, there is no interference by this Court and the appeal is rejected. The lower Court records may be sent down immediately.