Venkatarama Aiyar, J.-

The facts leading up to these revisions are these: The petitioner filed O.S. No. 154 of 1945, on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff of Tiruchirapalli to recover possession of immoveable property. He also claimed mesne profits. There was also a prayer for injunction. The defendants contested the claim. While the suit was pending the parties agreed to refer the matters in dispute between them in the suit and various other matters as well to arbitration and on 14th October, 1945, they executed a muchilika in favour of five named arbitrators containing inter alia the following statement:

“We two parties shall accept the decision of the panchayatdars regarding the said suits and assets, etc.”

In pursuance of this reference the panchayatdars pronounced an award on 18th November, 1945, Exhibit P-2 and applied under section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act to file the same into Court, I.A. No. 1627 of 1945. The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the award applied to set it aside under sections 30 and 33 of the Act, I.A. No. 51 of 1946, on the ground that there was no proper enquiry and that the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct. The plaintiff also contended that as the reference related to matters pending in a suit and as there was no order of reference through Court under section 23 the award was void. The defendants filed I.A. No. 364 of 1946 for recording the award as a compromise under Order 23, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. All these applications were heard together by the learned District Munsif. He held that as there was no order of reference through Court the award could not be upheld as such and he accordingly dismissed I.A. No. 1627 of 1945. He further held that the charges of misconduct against the arbitrators had not been established and he, therefore, dismissed I.A. No. 51 of 1946. He, however, held that the award could be treated as a compromise under Order 23, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code and ordered I.A. No. 364 of 1946. In the result the suit was decreed in terms of the award treating it as a compromise.

The plaintiff took up the matter in appeal to the District Court. In C.M.A. No. 12 of 1947 the District Judge confirmed the order in I.A. No. 1627 of 1945, on the ground that the reference not having been through Court, the award could not as such be upheld. In C.M.A. No. 13 of 1947 the learned District Judge agreed with the learned District Munsif that the charges of misconduct against the arbirators were not made out and he confirmed the order of dismissal of I.A. No. 51 of 1946. In C.M.A. No. 43 of 1946 he agreed with the order of the learned District Munsif in I.A. No. 364 of 1946 that the award though not valid as such could be upheld as a compromise under Order 23, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. In the result the decisions of the lower Court were confirmed. The plaintiff has preferred the above civil revision petitions against the orders in C.M.A. Nos. 12 of 1947, 13 of 1947 and 43 of 1946. Before me no attempt was made to attack the finding that the award is not vitiated by the misconduct of the arbitrators, nor has the award been sought to be supported on the ground that it would be valid as such notwithstanding that there is no order of reference through Court. It would follow that C.R.P. Nos. 1783 and 1784 of 1949 must be dismissed.

In C.R.P. No. 1785 of 1949 which is against the order directing the award to be recorded as adjustment under Order 23, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, the petitioner contends that an award which is not valid qua award could be treated as a compromise only under section 47 of the Arbitration Act which is in these terms:

“Subject to the provisions of section 46 and save in so far as is otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, the provisions of this Act shall apply to all arbitrations and to all proceedings thereunder; provided that an arbitration award otherwise obtained may with the consent of all the parties interested be taken int

Click Here to Read the rest of this document