The parties to an arbitration agreement can waive the implied condition as to time by voluntarily taking part in the arbitration proceedings after the expiry of the period of four months.

( 1 ) THIS is an application against an order of Sri Murtaza Husain, Civil Judge, Shahjahanpur, rejecting the applicants objections against an award made by an arbitrator, and pronouncing judgment in terms of that award. The facts which have led to this appeal are these. The applicant seth Shambhu Nath and the respondent Smt. Surja Devi belonged to the same family and appear to have been joint at one time. There was a partition of the joint family property as a result of which one shop, the property in dispute, is alleged to have been allotted to the respondent Smt. Surja Dev. In May 1949, the applicant Shambhu Nath occupied the shop, presumably claiming ownership. This naturally led to a dispute between him and Smt. Surja Dev. The prospect of litigation between two members of the same family was unpleasant for both of them and they agreed to have the dispute settled by arbitration. A Government official, Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singh, the then Addl. District Magistrate, Sitapur, was selected as arbitrator. In the preamble to the arbitration agreement, which was read out in Court by learned counsel for the applicant, it was stated that this official was selected because he was a friend of the family in whom both had the utmost confidence. It was also stated that it was the desire of both of them to avoid a quarrel (Jhagra) and prevent the disruption of family relationship. He was asked to decide two questions, (1) whether the applicant Seth Shambhu Nath or Smt. Surja Devi was owner of the shop in dispute, and (2) if the applicant was held not to be the owner, on what terms or conditions he should be admitted into tenancy and on what rent. On 5-11-1951 the arbitrator sent notices to the parties to appear before him. The hearing did not take place till the 12th April, 1952. On that date the parties appeared but the case was not taken up because the arbitrator was indisposed. On 13th April, the hearing took place and evidence of the parties recorded. On 15th April, the arguments were heard. On 23rd April the arbitrator made and signed the award and sent notices of this fact to the parties by registered post. On 28th April the present applicant Seth Shambhu nath wrote to the Arbitrator asking for a copy of the award. On 2nd May, 1952, he filed an application before the learned Civil Judge under Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, requesting the Court to direct the arbitrator to file his award in Court along with all other relevant papers. Simultaneously he filed his objections against the award. His application was registered as a plaint and he was directed to file fresh objections against the award after it had been filed in court by the arbitrator.

( 2 ) BEFORE the learned Judge the applicant contended that the arbitrator had misconducted himself, that the award was illegal as it was not made within four months, and also because the arbitrator had not sent a proper notice to the parties under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. All the objections were rejected by the learned Judge, who pronounced the judgment in terms of the arbitration award and directed that a decree be prepared. Aggrieved by this decision, the applicant has come to this Court in first appeal from order.

( 3 ) MR. Ambika Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant, raised three objections against the legality of the award. First, he contended that the Arbitrator having made the award beyond the statutory period of four months, it is void. It was denied by learned counsel for the respondent that the award had been made beyond time. In the trial Court the controversy centred round the date when the arbitrator is supposed to have entered upon the reference, and the learned Judge held that the date was not 5th November, 1951, but 24th February, 1952, However, it is not necessary for me to decide the actual date upon which the arbitration proceedings shall be deemed to have commenced, for this point can be decided on the facts alleged by the applicant