JUDGMENT

SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.:- The deceased appellant Naraindas Lilaram Adnani was the original petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 are his sons by his first wife. The 5th respondent is also the son of the appellant by his first wife. Respondent No. 3 is the wife of the first respondent. The 6th respondent Devibai Naraindas Adnani is the second wife of the appellant. Respondents 7 and 9 are the sons of the appellant by his second wife.

2. After filing of the Special Leave Petition the appellant died on 15-4-1988. The 9th respondent has filed IA No. 1/1989 for being substituted as the appellant in place of the original appellant. In the said application which is under Order 22, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with relevant rules of this Court, the 9th respondent has stated that the deceased appellant has left a Will under which respondent No. 9 is the sole executor of the Will. Under the said Will the appellant has left his entire estate to respondent No. 6 i.e. his second wife. Respondent No. 9 has, therefore, prayed that he should be impleaded in his capacity as the executor of the Will of the deceased appellant and as his legal representative. The Will, however, has not been probated so far. In view of Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, respondent No. 9 cannot, therefore, be, impleaded in his capacity as the executor of the will of the deceased appellant. It is, however, an accepted position that the legal representatives of the original appellant are already on record. We, therefore, do not see any difficulty in transposing respondent No. 9, one of the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, as the appellant. For the sake of convenience, however, the original appellant will be hereinafter referred to as the appellant and the transposed appellant will be referred to as respondent No. 9.

3. At all times material to these proceedings there were three partnership firms of which the appellant and some of his family members were partners. One was the firm of Naraindas Sons. The second firm was N. Sukhdev and Company and the third firm was Lilaram Kewalram (India). On account of differences and disputes between the appellant and the various members of his family, the parties agreed to refer their disputes to the sole arbitration of Shri D.N. Abhichandani, Advocate, under a Deed of Reference dated 17th of September, 1973. The Deed of Reference states that all disputes and differences between the parties are referred to the arbitration of Shri D.N. Abhichandani. Pursuant to the Deed of Reference the said Arbitrator entered upon the reference, heard the parties and made and published his Award dated 15th of March, 1979. The award has been filed in the Bombay High Court being Award No. 46/1979.

4. Four petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court challenging this Award. The 6th respondent, Devibai Naraindas Adnani, filed Arbitration Petition No. 102/1979. Respondent No. 7 filed Arbitration Petition No. 103/1979. The 9th respondent filed Arbitration Petition No. 104/1979 and the appellant filed Arbitration Petition No. 105\1979. All these petitions were heard and disposed of by a learned single Judge by his common judgment and order dated April 20/21, 1983, under which all the four petitions were dismissed. Being aggrieved by this order the appellant preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court being Appeal No. 563/83. No appeal was filed in the other three petitions which were also dismissed by the said judgment and order. The Division Bench has, by its judgment and order dated 10th of November, 1987 dismissed the appeal. Hence the appellant filed a special leave petition before this Court which has been granted.

5. The grievance of the appellant relates to the failure of the Arbitrator to give certain consequential reliefs in his Award. One of the properties which was the subject-matter of dispute before the Arbitrator was a property known as Narain Niwas situated at Vile Parle. Respondents 1 an