Sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, bar a suit on the original cause of action when the dispute has been referred to arbitration and an award has been given.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of Shrivastava, J. arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of certain lands and for damages in the alternative. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Second class, Hoshangabad, who tried, it. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge of Hoshangabad gave to the plaintiff a decree for specific performance of the contract. The defendant-respondents thereupon preferred a second appeal in this court which was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the plaintiffs claim for specific performance of the contract was dismissed. The learned Single Judge, however, gave to the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 600/-as damages against the respondent Pralhad Singh.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the plaintiffs case was that on 8th/9th April 1951 the respondent pralhad-singh entered into an oral agreement with him for sale of the suit lands for rs. 2700/-; that on 28th April 1951 he gave to Pralhadsingh wheat of the value of rs. 1600/- in part payment of the price; that before the execution of the sale deed pralhadsingh later on sold the property to the respondent No. 4 Shersingh on 4th june 1952; and that Shersingh purchased it even though be was given a notice by the plaintiff on 25th April 1952 not to purchase the lands. The plaintiff claimed a decree against Pralhadsingh, Shersingh and his son Ramsingh for conveyance of the property to him on receiving Rs. 1100/ -. In the alternative he prayed that a decree for Rs. 2700/-, made up of Rs. 1600/-paid as part consideration and of Rs. 1100/- as damages as against Pralhadsingh be passed. The suit was instituted, on 8th July 1933. ( 3 ) THE defendants denied any contract for the sale of the property to the plaintiff and the receipt of any wheat from him. They further pleaded that on a dispute arising between the parties regarding this matter, it was referred to arbitration on 17th May 1951; that the arbitrators gave their award on 18th May 1951, disallowing the plaintiffs claim for specific performance; and that they, however, directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 600/-in settlement of all his dues. The defendants raised the objection that the plaintiffs suit was barred under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. After the filing of the written-statement by the defendants the plaintiff was allowed to amend his plaint by introducing a new paragraph (No. 7-A) in the plaint containing the following averment:

"that there has been no reference regarding the matter in suit to any arbitration, nor has there been any valid award regarding the same. The award, if any, is not on stamp paper nor is it registered. Hence it is not admissible in evidence nor can it affect the rights of the parties under the original agreements. "

( 4 ) THE trial Court held that the agreement for the sale of the land was not proved; and that the suit was not barred under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, for, though there was reference to arbitration, it had not been proved that the dispute was finally decided by the arbitrators. Accordingly the suit was dismissed. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge found the contract for the sale of the lands pleaded by the plaintiff to be established. He took the view that the suit was not barred under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act inasmuch as it was not one for obtaining a decision upon the existence, effect or validity of an arbitration agreement or award and that the defendants could not rely upon the award as they did not take any proceedings for the filing of the award under Section 14 of the Act. On these findings, the plaintiff's claim for specific performance was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge.

( 5 ) IN second appeal the learned Single Judge upheld the finding of the lower appellate Court that there was a contract between the plaintiff and Pralhadsingh for the sale of the land. Relying on Nathulal v. Beharilal, ILR (1951) Nag 883; (AIR 19