An order passed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not an appellable one.

Headnote:
S. B. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 10-8-1994 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellant purported to be under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:

An arbitration agreement was entered into by and between the partners of a partnership firm wherein it had been stated that any work done or to be done or will be done in the name of any partner or partners or any other firms or anything other name of his sons and the same shall not be considered to be belonging to such partner or partners but shall be considered to be Anandram Gajadhar.
Finding of the Court:

It is held that the application for execution filed by the respondent No. 1 was maintainable and the objection under Section 47 filed by the Appellants herein to that effect was not sustainable in law and the judgment of the learned trial Judge must be upheld and furthermore no appeal lies thereagainst; But that part of the judgment of the learned trial Judge whereby it has been held that paragraph 3 of the award is declaratory in nature and, thus, non-executable, was beyond the scope of the objection filed by the appellants under Section 47 of the CPC and, thus, the appeal is maintainable against that part of the order under appeal. The finding of the learned trial Judge of the effect that paragraph 3 of the award is not executable cannot be sustained and, thus, the order and judgment to the said effect is set aside.
Issues: None
Ratio Decidendi: An order passed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not an appellable one. An award is referable to the claims as also disputes and differences before the parties the Court, therefore, with a view to construe a decree/award can even refer to the pleadings of the parties for the purpose of its true construction.
Final Decision: The appeal and the application are disposed of accordingly.

S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order dated 10-8-1994 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the application filed by the appellant purported to be under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.

( 2 ) THE fact of the matter briefly stated is as follows :a partnership firm in the name of Anandram Gajadhar was established as far back as in 1924. Deeds of reconstitution of partnership were executed by the parties from time to time and admittedly the last deed of partnership was executed on 7-3-1940. The partnership firm consisted of seven partners namely, Gajadhar Jaipuria, Puranmal Jaipuria, Mangturam Jaipuria, Vikram Jaipuria, Motilal Jaipuria, Ramnarayan Ojha and Shiv Narayan Poddar.

( 3 ) ON or about 15-12-1941, an agreement was entered into by and between the partners of the said partnership firm wherein it had been stated that any work done or to be done or will be done in the name of any partner or partners or any other firms or anything other name of his sons and the same shall not be considered to be belonging to such partner or partners but shall be considered to be Anandram Gajadhar. One Mangturam Jaipuria thereafter shifted to Kanpur. Disputes and differences amongst the partners of the said firm arose in the year 1957. With a view to resolve the said disputes and differences, an arbitration agreement was entered into by and between the parties on 2-5-57 in terms whereof Sri G. D. Birla failing which Sri B. M. Birla was appointed as sole Arbitrator. However, on 13-3-1961 all the concerned parties agreed that the disputes and difference between them be referred to the sole Arbitrator of Sri B. M. Birla. The said Arbitrator having entered into reference made and published an award on 25-5-1967. The said award had been filed in this Court in June, 1967.

( 4 ) AN objection to the said award was filed by the appellants herein inter alia on the ground that the same being not a registered one was illegal and, thus, could not be made a rule of Court. In the said objection misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator had also been alleged. By an order dated 2-5-1972, a learned Judge of this Court set aside the said award and refused the same to be made a rule of Court. The respondent No. 1 herein being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order preferred an appeal thereagainst which was marked as Appeal No. 229 of 1973. A Division Bench of this Court consisting of S. C. Sen as his Lordship then was) and B. P. Banerjee, J. allowed the said appeal inter alia holding that neither any misconduct has been committed by the Arbitrator nor the disputes and differences amongst the parties being referable to the assets of the partnership, the award required any registration. The relevant portion of the said award reads thus :-" (1) I award and direct that Shri Mangturam Jaipuria, Sri Sitaram Jaipuria, Shri Rajaram Jaipuria, Smt. Jamuna Devi Jaipuria, Smt. Gayatri Devi Jaipuria and Smt. Suniti Devi Jaipuria will jointly and severally pay to the persons mentioned in Column I of the first schedule hereto the amounts respectively mentioned against their names in the column II of the said schedule with interest thereon at the rate of 71/2 per annum from the date hereof until payment. (2) I further award and direct that Shri Mangturam Jaipuria, Shri Sitaram Jaipuria, Shri Rajaram Jaipuria, Smt. Jamuna Devi Jaipuria, Smt. Gayatri Devi Jaipuria and Smt. Suniti Devi Jaipuria will jointly and severally pay to the persons mentioned in Column I of the second schedule hereto the amounts respectively mentioned against their names in column II of the said schedule with interest thereon respectively at the rate of 71/2% per annum from the date hereof until payment. (3) I declare that all the assets (including all the ordinary shares of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd.) of the firm of Messrs. Anandram Gajadhar and all its branches shall belong to Shri Mangturam Jaipuria, Shri S