The Court has no power to set aside an award suo moto.

T. R. Handa, J.—By this petition the petitioner seeks revision of the decision dated It.3.1976 given by the Additional District Judge, Kangra purporting to be in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction under section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, (hereinafter called the Act) whereby the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the order of the Senior Subordinate Judge Dharamsala passed under section 17 of the Act directing that the award filed in his Court under section 14 of the Act by the Arbitrator be made a rule of the Court and a decree be passed in terms thereof.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition may in the first instance be stated briefly. The petitioner and the respondent are real brothers. They jointly owned considerable property both movable as also immovable and also were carrying on joint business under different names and styles. As usually happens under such circumstances, differences cropped up between the two brothers concerning their joint property and business. They referred such disputes to the sole arbitration of their uncle Jagat Ram vide their agreement dated 10.8.1965.

3. The arbitrator appears to have entered upon reference promptly and he actually made his award on 17.8.1965. Signed copies of the award were supplied to the parties by the arbitrator on the following day i. e. 18.8.1965. Since the parties had not earlier supplied him with the requisite stamp paper, the arbitrator made his original award dated 17.8.1965 on an unstamped paper and also called upon the parties to provide him with the stamp paper to enable him to re-write the award on such paper.

4. The stamp paper was subsequently furnished to the arbitrator by the respondent only on 10.12.1965 on which date, the arbitrator rewrote the award on that paper. This award written on the stamp paper was got registered by the arbitrator on 27.12.1965 with the Sub-Registrar. Later at the request of the respondent the arbitrator on 8.8.1968 filed that stamped award in Court under section 14 of the Act. It may be mentioned that the arbitrator in his award rewritten on the stamped paper had faithfully recorded that the original award on unstamped paper had been written by him on 17.8.1965 and that the award filed by him was rewritten by him on a stamped paper furnished to him on 10.12.1965 by the respondent.

5. On such application being filed by the arbitrator the trial Court directed issue of notices to the parties intimating them about the filing of the award and calling upon them to file objections against the same, if any, within the statutory period. The case was directed to be listed on 9-10-1968. The respondent was served of this notice and he put in appearance through his counsel on 9.10.1968 but the petitioner could not be served and hence he failed to appear. Fresh notice was therefore ordered to be issued to the petitioner and the case was adjourned to 12.12.1968. On 12.12.1968 both the parties put in appearance in Court through their respective counsel. The Court on that day passed the following order : "Present Counsel for the parties. Award filed. Objections against the award may be filed within the statutory period. To come up on 26/2 for further proceedings". This order appears to have been passed as the petitioner was served with the notice only on 9.12.1968.

6. Neither party cared to file any objection against the award within the statutory period. In the meanwhile the date fixed in the case was changed from 26.2.1969 to 11.3.1969 as the Courts were to remain closed for winter vacation from 31.1.1969 to 1.3.1969. It was only on 6.MC69 that petitioner filed his objections against the award under section 30/33 of the Act. The objection raised by the petitioner inter alia included the following: (a) The award was in fact executed on 17.8.65 and it was illegally registered on 27 12.65 beyond the prescribed period of limitation by the Sub-Registrar Palampur, The Registration is invalid. The award is invalid for want of prop