ORDER :- This revision is directed against an order whereby the trial court rejected a preliminary objection which was raised on behalf of the defendant to the maintainability of the suit.

2. The brief facts are these: An award was made the rule of the court in Misc. Case No. 64 of 1974 by the court of the District Judge, Rampur. Subsequently, Smt. Bhagwandei, the plaintiff-opposite party, filed regular suit No. 64 of 1975 in the same court seeking a declaration that the decree passed in the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 64 of 1974 was null and void and inoperative. She contended that she never entered into any arbitration agreement and was never any party to any arbitration proceedings. She further alleged that the application whereby she was alleged to have moved the District Judge in the aforesaid Misc. Case for making the award of the arbitrator the rule of the court was not made by her and her alleged signature thereon was forged. In other words, her challenge was that the entire proceedings were fraudulent and she, in fact, was no party to the same. She alleged that she came to know of the fraud when the award-decree was sought to be executed and in the execution thereof her residential house and cash deposit were got attached. She then got the file of Misc. Case No. 64 of 1974 inspected and then she came to know about the aforesaid fraud.

3. The defendant did not file any written statement but put in applications and in one of such applications, a contention was raised that the suit was not maintainable and the plaintiffs only remedy was by way of application under S. 33 of the Arbitration Act. It was also pointed out that the plaintiff had earlier moved such an application under S. 33 but she got the same dismissed after filing the suit. By the impugned order, the trial court rejected the abjection raised on behalf of the defendant and held that the suit was maintainable and was not barred by S. 32 of the Arbitration Act. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has come up in the instant revision and in support and opposition of the revision, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri H. S. Nigam learned counsel for the applicant, has placed reliance on Basant Lal v. Surendra Prasad (AIR 1957 Pat 417). A reference has also been made to Mangal Singh v. Nawab Singh (AIR 1962 All 219), Prem Sagar Chawla v. M/s. Security and Finance (P.) Ltd. (AIR 1968 Delhi 21) (FB) and Jawahar Lal Berman v. Union of India (AIR 1962 SC 378). On the other hand, Sri H. S. Joshi, learned counsel for the plaintiff-opposite party has placed reliance on Saha and Company v. Ishar Singh Kripal Singh and Company (AIR 1956 Cal 321) (FB), Kailashpati Singhania v. Ram Gopal Gupta (AIR 1973 All 316), L. Madan Lal Haveliwala v. Sunder Lal (AIR 1964 All 38) and Ved Prakash v. Ram Narain Goel (AIR 1977 Delhi 47).

4. To appreciate the nature of controversy a few sections of the Indian Arbitration Act may be noticed. Sections 14, 17, 30, 31, 32 and 33 are as follows:

"14. Award to be signed and filed.-

(1) When the arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award.

(2) The arbitrator or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them to be filed in court, and the court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award.

(3) Where the arbitrators or umpire state a special case under Cl. (b) of S. 13, the court, after giving notice to the parties and hearing them, shall pronounce its opinion therein and such opini

Click Here to Read the rest of this document