Judgement

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- Special leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta dated 19th of June, 1986 in Civil Order No. 2278 of 1985 (reported in AIR 1987 Cal 107). On or about 11th of June, 1977 an unregistered deed of agreement between the four brothers being the appellants Nos. 1 to 4 and their eldest brother. respondent No. 1 was entered into regarding partition of joint movable and immovable properties and the same were referred to three arbitrators, namely, three appellants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 herein. On or about 2nd of July, 1977 the same agreement was rewritten on a fresh stamp paper and the same was registered by which the abovenamed arbitrators were given the option to take assistance of one, two or more persons, The dispute related to certain properties among the brothers in Chinsurah the district of Hooghly in the State of West Bengal. The three arbitrators took the assistance of appellant No. 8 and he functioned and acted as one of the arbitrators.

3. On or about November 28, 1977 the arbitrators explained their award to the parties and made and signed the award. On or about 1st December, 1977 the eldest brother filed an application under S. 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the Act) before the learned Munsif, Arambagh being Misc. Case No. 74 of 1977. The appellants Nos. 1 to 4 filed an application under S. 14 of the Act before the learned Sub Judge, Hooghly at Chinsurah praying for a direction on the arbitrator to file the award in the court in Misc. Case No. 28 of 1977. The arbitrators filed the award before the learned Sub Judge Hooghly at Chinsurah on 28th of January, 1978. On 26th of July, 1978 the learned Munsif, Arambagh ordered interim injunction on the parties including the arbitrators to maintain status quo till the disposal of Misc. Case No. 74 of 1977 initiated by the appellant No. 1. On 14th of August, 1978 the arbitrators made an application before the learned Sub Judge, Hooghly at Chinsurah to return back the award to enable them to present the same before the Sub-Registrar for registration. On 2nd September, 1978. the learned Sub Judge fixed the hearing of the arbitrators application to return the award to them. In January, 1980 the arbitrators application was heard and the learned Sub Judge ordered return of the award to the arbitrators to enable them to present the same for registration.

4. The High Court of Calcutta in Civil Rule No. 621 of 1980 on 6th March, 1981 set aside the aforesaid order of the learned Sub Judge holding that during the subsistence of the interim injunction order on the arbitrators to maintain status quo the arbitrators could not take back the award for presenting the same for registration. The High Court ordered that the arbitrators application dated 14th of August, 1978 should be kept pending and be heard when the injunction order was vacated. On 20th December, 1982 the learned Munsif, Arambagh dismissed Misc. Case No. 74 of 1977 and the interim injunction order ipso facto was, discharged. The arbitrators, therefore, renewed their prayer before the learned Sub Judge to return the award. On 25th of February, 1983 the learned Sub Judge dismissed the arbitrators application and did not direct return of the award holding that the limitation for the registration of the award had already expired. The High Court in Civil Order No. 589 of 1983 on 19th of September, 1983 directed the learned Sub Judge to return back the award to the arbitrators holding that it was the Registrar and not the Sub Judge who could determine the question of limitation for the purpose of registration of the award. The learned Sub Judge. Hooghly at Chinsurah on 23rd of November, 1983 ordered returning back of the award to the arbitrators. On 24th of November, 1983 the arbitrators got back the award from the court. On 25th November, 1983 i.e., the very next day the arbitrators presented the award before the Sub-Registrar, Ara