( 1 ) BY order dated 12-12-2001, one of us (P. S. Narayana, J) had referred the following questions to be decided by an appropriate Division Bench: (A) Whether the umpire or an Arbitrator can maintain a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil procedure ? (B) What is the period of limitation and whether the suit is within limitation in view of the ratio in Champalal v. Mst. Samrathbai, AIR 1960 SC 629, or whether it can be said to be barred by limitation in view of the decision in Patel Motibhai Naranbhai and another v. Dinubhai Motibhaf Patel and others, 1996 (3) ALD (SCSN) 3 = AIR 1996 SC 997 ? (C) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, what should be the further procedure to be followed in view of the provisions of the arbitration Act, 1940? thus the matter is coming up before this court. At the stage of hearing of the civil revision petition, Respondent Nos. 1, 3 arid the legal representatives of the Respondent nos. 8 to 11 moved an application CRPMP no. 12285/2004 praying for transposition by deleting their names from the array of respondent sby transposing them as petitioners and pass such other suitable orders.

( 2 ) THE civil revision petition is filed as against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar, dated 13-7-1995 made in OS. No. 44/89. The revision petitioner in the civil revision petition is the petitioner-umpire in OS. No. 44/89 stated supra. The revision petitioner- plaintiff had instituted the above suit under section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for pronouncing judgment and decree in accordance with the award dated 18-3-1986 under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 after issuing notice to the respective parties.

( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows:

( 4 ) BY an arbitration agreement dated 1-2-1986, Respondents 1 and 2 and their father one Lakshma Reddy and Respondents 4 to 7 had submitted their difference to an arbitration appointing certain persons as arbitrators and the plaintiff-petitioner as umpire. Lakshma Reddy, Madusudhan reddy and Venkat Reddy were brothers and the were differences between the families of Lakshma Reddy and madhusudhan Reddy and Respondents 1 to 3 shown in OS No. 44/89 represent the family of Lakshma Reddy, described as 1st party and Respondents 4 to 7 represent the family of late Madhusudhan reddy, described as 2nd party in the cause- title in the said suit. Lakshma Reddy, who was also a party to the arbitration agreement and the award passed by the Arbitrators, died on 25-1-1987 after passing of the award and hence his legal representatives were impleaded as parties. The umpire and other four named Arbitrators after necessary enquires and due deliberations mad an award dated 8-3-1986 which was read over to the parties and they had signed the award and had agreed to act upon it. Respondents 1 to 3 in the suit requested the petitioner to file the award into Court and accordingly the petitioner had filed the original award before the District Registrar, karimnagar on 28-2-1989 for adjudication of the stamp and for impounding if necessary, and however the petition was filed with a Photostat copy of the award. Defendants 1 to 3 in the suit were set ex parte, but during the trial as per the orders in IA No. 2076/94, they were permitted to let in evidence. Defendants 4 to 7 in the suit filed written statement and objections to the award dated 8-3-1986. The stand taken is that the umpire was won over by Defendants 1 to 3 in the suit and the petitioner-umpire kept quite for along time till Defendants 1 to 3 instructed him and he had neither consulted nor informed Defendants 4 to 7 about the alleged request and apart from it, they had raised several factual disputes and had taken a stand that the award is bad in law and deserves to be set aside.

( 5 ) ON the strength of the pleadings, the Court below had settled the following points:1. Whether the Arbitrators have exceeded their powers, if so, the award is liable to be s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document