Judgment :- 1. Arbitration Original Suits Nos. 37,38 & 39 of 1979 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottarakara, were disposed of by a common judgment dated 9-4-1980. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed all the suits on the short ground that without the original or the authenticated copies of the documents mentioned in S.8 of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961, the suits were not maintainable. 2. Sri. P. K. Kurien, the counsel for the appellants, submitted that in the written statements filed by the respondents no contention with respect to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that alongwith the suit the original or the authenticated copy of the award was not produced was raised. He also submitted that in any event the non-production of the original award or the fact that it has not been proved that the copy produced was an authenticated one in the manner required by law of the country in which it was made could not constitute a valid ground for the dismissal of the suits. 3. Mrs. Usha Sukumaran, the counsel for the respondents, submitted that under S.8 of the Act, the mandatory requirement is that the original award or a copy thereof duly authenticated in the manner required by law of the country in which it was made, shall be produced by the party at the time of the application, and that not having been done, the learned Subordinate Judge was perfectly justified in dismissing the suit. 4. The only point for decision in these appeals is whether the court below was justified in dismissing these appeals on the ground that the copy of the award produced before the court was riot proved to be the one duly authenticated in the manner required by law of the country in which it was made. We find considerable force in the argument advanced by Sri. We find considerable force in the argument advanced by Sri. P. K. Kurien that not only the contention was not raised in the written statement filed by the defendants (respondents) in the respective suits, but the court below also did not give an opportunity to the petitioner either to show that the requirements of the section were satisfied or that on a proper consideration of the matter it was possible for the court below to find that the copy of the award produced was the one duly authenticated In the manner required by the law of the country in which it was made. Neither S. S nor, for that matter, S.6 of the Act, states that the failure to produce the copy which is not duly authenticated in the manner required by the law of the country in which it was made, at the time of the application would entail the dismissal of the suit; to take a contrary decision is definitely opposed to all principles of natural justice also, particularly in view of the fact that the respondents had not contested this point in the written statement. For the foregoing reasons the appeals are allowed setting aside the decree and judgment of the court below and directing the court below to restore the suits on its file and dispose them of afresh according to law. The parties would appear before the court below on 5-12-1983. No costs. Allowed. Issue carbon copy of this judgment to the counsel for the petitioners and to the counsel for the respondents on usual terms. Immediately after the judgment was pronounced the counsel for the respondents made an oral submission under Art.134(A) (b) of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We find no substantial question of general importance which needs to be settled by the Supreme Court involved in these M. F. As. Hence the request is declined. Leave declined.