Mt Brij Raj Kuar vs Ram Nath - 1923 Supreme(Oudh) 52

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1923 Supreme(Oudh) 52

DALAL
Mt Brij Raj Kuar – Appellant
Versus
Ram Nath – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dalal, J C - The plaintiff Ram Nath sued on the basis of a Chitti three persons in the Court of the Munsif of Utraula. The defendants were Must. Suraj Kumari and Brij Raj Kumari (co-widows of one Ram Saran) and Rattan Lal. On the date of hearing, Rattan Lal and a general agent of Must. Suraj Kumari admitted the claim. Subsequently Ram Nath and Brij Raj Kumari entered into an agreement to refer the question in dispute between them to arbitration and an award was given by the arbitrator. A decree was passed by the Court in terms of the award. The objections made to the award in the lower Court are not repeated here. The main point urged in revision in this Court is that the agreement to refer the matter to arbitration was invalid and that therefore the lower Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree in terms of the award. The objection is based on the words of para. 1, Sch. II of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was argued that all the parties interested in the suit must agree to refer the matter to arbitration, and in the present case Rattan Lal and Must. Suraj Kumari had not agreed. The learned Counsel of the applicant quoted Polita Pavro Panda v. Narasinga Panda (1919) 42

Click Here to Read the rest of this document