Judgment

ALAGIRISWAMI, J.:- This appeal is against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the appellant s appeal against the judgment of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Karnal making the award in a dispute between the appellant and the respondents a Rule of Court. The facts necessary for decision are as follows.

2. In 1948 the Government of India sponsored a scheme to build and establish a colony for the resettlement and rehabilitation of displaced persons at Nilokheri and started several industries including a dairy farm. Some of the founders of the appellant Society took over the dairy farm business from the Rehabilitation Administration under an agreement dated 1-10-1950. They later formed themselves into a co-operative society and took over the same business and entered into an agreement on 6-5-1953. There is no dispute that originally the whole transaction was made under the agreement of 1-10-50 and that the disputes had to be decided on the basis of the agreement of 6-5-1953. On the ground that the appellant Society did not pay its dues regularly in pursuance of the agreement the dispute between the parties was referred to an arbitrator, a Subordinate Judge of the Punjab Judicial Service. The award was made on 30-11-l963. Thereupon the respondents applied to the Senior Subordinate Judge of Karnal to make the award a Rule of Court and the Subordinate Judge accordingly made it a Rule of Court. The appellant s appeal to the High Court also having failed this appeal has been filed by special leave.

3. Before the Arbitrator the appellant s total claim against the respondents was for a sum of Rupees 1,26,800/-. In addition they also claimed that the respondents should be directed to transfer the 150 acres of land allotted to them at the rates charged from other agriculturists after adjustment of the rent already received by the Administration. On the other hand the counter claim of the respondents was for a sum of Rupees 79,232.65 and also that the Government land in possession of the appellant should be returned to the Nilokheri Administration.

4. The Arbitrator being a Judicial Officer has treated the matter as if it were a suit before him and given reasons for the award which is as long as a judgment of a civil Court in a similar matter would be. That has given the appellant a good deal of room for arguments on various matters. But the main points urged before the Courts below as well as before us were these:

1. The Arbitrator had misconducted himself in that having failed to include the question of privilege in the award he had interpolated the order of 14-9-63.

2. He had not considered the question on the basis of the pleadings.

3. He had no jurisdiction to make an award in respect of the land and buildings which were not part of the reference.

4. He had misconstrued the term provisional in the agreement regarding cattle.

5. He had been influenced by the speech made by the then Chief Minister of Punjab on 14-11-63 at Nilokheri accusing the Society of mismanagement.

Points 1, 2 & 4:

5. It was on point (1) that Mr. B.R.L Iyengar, the learned Advocate for the appellant, made his most serious complaint. There is no doubt that if his complaint that the Arbitrator did not give a ruling on the question of privilege claimed by the respondents in respect of certain documents summoned by the appellant and did not decide the question or pass an order therein on 14-9-63, the date on which the order in the file purports to have been made but had subsequently interpolated it, is sustained the appellant would be entitled to succeed completely and the award would have to be set aside in toto without reference to any other consideration. No award given by an Arbitrator who is held guilty of such fraudulent misconduct could ever be upheld. But having given our most anxious consideration to this question we are not able to persuade ourselves to take a view different from that of the learned Subordinate Judge and the High Court