JAGAT NARAYAN, J.—This is a revision application by the legal representatives of one Allarakha against an order of the District Judge, Merta, holding that the application filed by Allarakha under sec. 17 of the Arbitration Act was not in accordance with law as the award which he filed had not been filed in accordance with sec. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act. Allarakha filed the original registered award in court and alleged in paras 6 and 7 of his application under sec. 17 that the arbitrators had given the award to him for taking legal proceedings.

2. It is common ground between the parties that the dispute between Allarakha and Abdul Karim with regard to a piece of land situated at Merta was referred to five arbitrators under an agreement which is on record. The five arbitrators appointed under it were Haji Mulla Usman, Abdulla, Farid Baksh, Noor Mohammad and Ashraf Ali. Four of these arbitrators filed an affidavit in support of the application of Allarakha in which it was alleged that the award was handed over by Noor Mohammad to Allarakha on behalf of Noor Mohammad and the remaining arbitrators for taking legal proceedings on the basis of it. These 4 arbitrators were cross-examined. Noor Mohammad stated in cross-examination :

^^eSaus iap QSlyk vykj[k dks gekjh rjQ ls geus QSlyk fn;k mldks vey esa ykus ds fy, dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dks dgk Fkk nkok nj[okLr btjk; djus ds okLrs rilhy ugha [kksyh FkhA

In the first part of the above statement he has used the word ^^gekjh rjQ ls**. In the second part he has however stated that—

eSaus budks vey esa ykus ds okLrs dk;Zokgh djus dks dgk FkkA

3. From the above statement it cannot be inferred that Noor Mohammad had been authorised by the other arbitrators to hand over the award to Allarakha for taking legal proceedings. At any rate the remaining 3 arbitrators who filed affidavits in support of Noor Mohammad made conflicting statements in cross-examination-Hazi Malla Usmans cross-examination goes to show that he was under the impression that the award was still with Noor Mohammad. In re-examination the affidavit was read out to him. Then he stated that what he had alleged in the affidavit was true and that he had made a wrong statement in cross-examination. Abdulla stated in cross-examination that the award was written on two stamp papers one of which was given to Allarakha. Abdul Karim was called to take the duplicate but he refused to take it. The arbitrators then told Allarakha that as Abdul Karim was not willing to abide by the award he should take legal steps to enforce it. The award which was filed in court is a registered one. He did not know who brought the registered document from the Registration Department. Farid Baksh is the son-in-law of Allarakha and he supported what he had alleged in his affidavit. The fifth arbitrator Ashraf was examined by Abdul Karim as his witness. He stated that he did not authorise any one to hand over the award to Allarakha. From the evidence on record it is clear that it is not proved at any rate that Haji Mulla Usman authorised the handing over of the award to Allarakha. The fact that in re-examination he admitted what he had stated in the affidavit was correct and that his statement in cross-examination was wrong goes to show that this witness was not hostile to Allarakha. I have therefore no reason to doubt that the statement made by him in cross-examination is true and that he at any rate did not authorise Noor Mohammad to deliver the award to Allarakha.

4. On behalf of the applicants it was contended that Noor Mohammad had been appointed as umpire and therefore he could have authorised Allarakha to file the award in court. The arbitration agreement does not provide for the appointment of an umpire. The number of arbitrators appointed was odd and therefore under para 3 of the First Schedule of the Arbitration Act there was no implied power in the arbitrators to appoint an umpire. The arbitrators in their statements in court referred to Noor Mohammad a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document