I.S. ISRANI, J.—This civil misc. appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, (here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been filed against the order dated 28.10.1978, passed by the learned Distt. Judge, Ajmer in arbitration proceedings in civil suit number 57 of 1970, by which he refused to set aside the award on the basis of objections filed by the appellant under S. 13 read with S. 15 to 17 and 33 of the Act.

2. All will suffice to say for the purpose of this appeal that respondent No. 2, had purchased a truck on hire purchase agreement for Rs. 31,075/-which has to be paid by way of instalments. It was contended by the respondent that the appellant stood as. a guarantor of respondent number 2, and executed an agreement to this effect on October, 1966. It was agreed between the parties that* in case of the dispute with regard to hire purchase agreement, the same shall be referred to arbitration of one Shri Gopal Narain Mathur. The respondent No. 1, alleged that a dispute arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the arbitration on January 3, 1970, and the arbitrator gave its award and filed an application under S. 14(2) of the Act to make the award a decree of the Court. The learned Distt. Judge, passed an ex-parte order dated March 19, 1971, against the appellant on the application filed by the arbitrator, but the same was set-aside on July 7, 1975. The next date was fixed on August 7, 1975, on which the appellant paid the costs of Rs. 200/- regarding setting-aside the ex-parte order. On this date, the appellant sought time to file objections to the award and filed his objections on August 20, 1975. The respondent submitted an application on several grounds and one of the grounds was that the application for objections dated August 20, 1975, was time barred and therefore, issue number 8, was framed regarding the question of limitation. The learned District Judge, recorded the evidence of both the parties and after hearing the arguments dismissed all the objections raised by the appellant vide his impugned order dated October 28, 1978.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial court has grossly erred in holding that the application of objections filed by the appellant on August 10, 1975, was time barred. It is also contended that the issue number 2, which is regarding signatures of the appellant on the agreement, were secured by the respondent No. 1, in fact, on blank printed form. It is further contended that the arbitrator acted contrary to law and principles of natural justice as no hearing was given to the appellant. It is contended that appellant did not receive any communications from the arbitrator which is alleged to have been refused by the appellant. It is further contended that the arbitrator did not give any notice regarding award in writing to the appellant as required under the provisions of the Act. It is also stressed that the arbitrator has mis-conducted himself by filing the award in court suo-moto, which is contrary to the provisions of S. 14 (2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that on application under O. 9 Rule 13, CPC filed by the appellant, the learned District Judge, set aside the ex-parte decree passed against the appellant on December, 18, 1973, vide his order dated July 7, 1975. It is further pointed out that even though ex-parte order was ordered to be set-aside on the above date, cost of Rs. 200/- was imposed on the appellant and the next date in the case was fixed on August 7, 1975. It is therefore, contended that the objections filed by the appellant on August 20, 1975, were within the period of 30 days from the date of August 7, 1975, the day on which the costs of Rs. 200/-for setting-aside the ex-parte order was paid by the appellant. It is stressed that the ex-parte order is deemed to have been set-aside only on payment of costs which was done on August 20, 1975, and the appellant could not have filed the app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document