A party to an arbitration agreement has the right to file the award in Court, and such an application is not barred by limitation.

Harnam Singh, J.

1. In order to appreciate the points that arise fox decision in First Appeal from order No. 2 of 1959 the facts of the case may be set out in some detail.

2. On 20-1-1943 Ganga Ram appellant and Radha Kishan respondent referred the dispute between them to the arbitration of Shri Girdhari Lal by agreement, Exhibit P. 1. On the following day Shri Girdhari Lal made the award, Exhibit P. 2, which was signed by both parties and presented for registration. In the office of the Sub Registrar Radha Kishan paid Rs. 250/- to Ganga Ram in accordance with the conditions of the award, Ex, P. 2. No further action seems to have been taken by the parties till 23-6-1944, when Radha Kishan instituted Civil Suit No. 313 of 1944 for declaration that by the award, Exhibit P. 2, he had become owner of the property subject to a charge of the dafendant to the extent of Rs. 3,000/-. That suit was decreed by the Sub-Judge on 18-1-1947. On appeal from the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 319 of 1944 the Senior Sub-Judge dismissed the suit; leaving the parties to bear their own costs. In Regular Second Appeal No, 122 of 1948 the decision given by the Senior Sub-Judge was upheld on 30-5-1951.

3. During the pendency of Regular Second Appeal No. 122 of 1948 Radha Kishan made application under Section 17, Arbitration Act, 1940 , hereinafter referred to as the Act, for decree in accordance with the award, Exhibit P. 2. In resisting that application Ganga Ram pleaded inter alia

(1) that no application under Section 17 of the Act was competent;

(2) that the application was barred by time;

(3) that the application was barred by Section 11, Civil P.C. and

(4) that the agreement, Exhibit P. 1 was against public policy and unenforceable.

4. on the pleadings of the parties the Court fixed tile following issues:

"1. Whether the application for filing the award as framed is incompetent?

2. Whether the agreement of reference is void and illegal on the basis of the objection taken by the respondent in the written statement.

3. Whether the award, Exhibit P. 2, is unenforceable in view of the grounds mentioned in the written statement?

4. How does the decision of the appellate Court, Exhibit P. 3, affect the present suit, the previous proceedings having taken place between the parties to this litigation?

5. Whether the application in question is tune-barred?

6. Relief.

7. Whether the objections against the award filed by the respondent were time-barred; if so, how does it affect the present petition?"

5. On issues Nos. 1 and 5 the Court has found the application under Section 17 of the Act to be competent and within time. On issues Nos. 2 and 3 the Court has found the agreement of reference Exhibit P. 1, to be legal and the award, Exhibit P. 2, to be enforceable. In deciding the case the Court has found that the judgment, Exhibit P. 3, does not in any way affect the application under Section 17 of the Act and that the objections to the validity of the award were within time. In the result, the Sub-Judge has made the award the rule of the Court ordering Ganga Ram respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

6. From the order passed by the Sub-Judge Ganga Ram has appealed under Section 39(l)(vi) of the Act.

7. In the memorandum of appeal it is said that in case it is held from the order passed by the Sub-Judge an appeal is not competent the memorandum of appeal may he treated as a petition for revision. In these proceedings it is common ground that the order under appeal is an Order refusing to set aside the award falling within Section 39(l)(vi) of the Act.

8. On 10-12-1953 First Appeal from Order No. 2 of 1952 was placed before me for disposal, when counsel for the parties suggested that inasmuch as from a judgment that might be given by one Judge of the Court in F. A. O. No, 2 of 1952 Letters Patent Appeal would be permitted as a matter of right the case should be put up before a Division Bench of the Court to avoid delay in the final disposal