ORDER :- Opponent No.1 Brijmohan filed an application under S.20 of the Arbitration Act against the applicants as well as opponents Nos.2 to 5 contending that the original opponents had entered into an agreement with him on 24-11-1965 whereunder he had advanced an amount of Rs. 26,250/- to the opponents on the terms and conditions enumerated therein. Further, according to him, as the opponents failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement, vide registered notice dated 11-11-1967 he asked them to pay an amount of Rs. 31,885.86 as dues on account of his business commission. Vide reply dated 27-9-1968 the opponents contended that the entire dues were pai dto his father and as no business was done for the concerned pictures for November 1967 onwards, nothing more was payable to him. Therefore, as according to opponent Brijmohan, a dispute or a difference had arisen between the parties, to which the arbitration agreement applied, he filed an application under S.20 of the Arbitration Act. The application in that behalf was filed on 2-1-1971.

2. The opponents to the original application opposed the said application on various grounds. They also contended that the application was barred by limitation. Original applicant Brijmohan adduced evidence in support of his case and ultimately vide order dated 17-10-1973, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati, permitted filing of the said agreement and directed that reference should be made to the Arbitrators appointed by the parties. It is this order which is challenged in this revision application.

3. Initially when the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 3-12-1976, Shri Mehadia, the learned counsel for opponent No.1, was absent. After the matter was heard and was closed for judgment he appeared and requested that he could not appear before the Court on 3-12-1976 as his name was not shown in the cause list notified by this Court. In view of this, the matter was re-heard at his request. At the outset a contention was raised by Shri Mehadia that this revision application is not maintainable under S.115 of the Civil P.C.

4. In my opinion there is some substance in this contention of Shri Mehadia, S.39 of the Arbitration Act deals with appealable orders. The controversy involved in this revision application is covered by Cl.(iv) of S.39(1) of the Arbitration Act. In view of this, it is not disputed by Shri Manohar, the learned counsel for the applicants, that instead of filing a revision application, his clients should have filed an appeal before this Court. However, he contended before me that the present revision application should be treated as an appeal and should be decided on that footing. In my opinion, the request made by Shri Manohar deserves to be granted. In cases where an appeal lies but a revision application is wrongly preferred, the Court has wide discretion to treat it as an appeal if conditions laid down by law are fully satisfied. I find that all the necessary conditions are satisfied in the present case. Therefore, it will not be proper to dismiss this revision application at this stage on such technical ground. In view of this, the present revision application is permitted to be converted into an appeal and is directed to be registered as an appeal against an order.

5. Shri Manohar, the learned counsel for the appellants contended before me that the learned Judge of the trial Court committed an error apparent on the face of the record in not deciding the question of limitation at all. According to Shri Manohar, the provisions of Art.137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 apply to the present application and, therefore, respondent No.1 Brijmohan should have filed this application within a period of 3 years from the date when the right to apply accrued to him. According to Shri Manohar, the right to apply accrued to Brijmohan on 11-11-1967 when the first notice was issued by him. Therefore, the application filed by him on 2-1-1971 is obviously barred by l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document