Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 614 (PAT)

Gaya Ram v. Dinesh Singh

2001-07-20

S.N.PATHAK

body2001
Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by Sub-Judge 1st, Gopal Ganj, in Title Suit (Arbitration) No. 121/93. The defendant of the suit is the appellant here. 2. The relevant facts are that the plaintiff-respondents filed the aforesaid suit on the allegation that they had pledged certain ornaments to the appellant and on the basis of the pledge they had taken some loan. They paid back the loan to the tune of Rs. 55,000.00 , but the defendant-appellant failed to return the pledged ornaments. When there was a hue and cry over tide affair, people gathered and persuaded the parties to abide by the decision of Panchas. 15 panchas were nominated by the parties and Panchnama was prepared on 20-6-1993. The panchayati had to take place on 22-6-1993. On this date 10 panchas gathered near Shiva Temple and in presence of the parties gave their award. The defendant-appellant was directed to return the ornaments to the plaintiff-respondents, but when he failed, the suit was filed before the Sub-Judge and during the course of hearing of the suit, the same award was filed which was made rule of the Court. 3. It was submitted by the appellants lawyer that out of the 15 nominated panches only 10 appeared and only 9 of them signed on the decision of the Panchas. So, it was not a majority decision and there was no explanation as to why other panchas out of the nominated 15 failed to turn up. Moreover, the original award was not filed before the Court. Besides the above, the panchayati was held on 22-6-1993, but the award was signed on 22-6-1993. One of the panchas himself deposed on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents in Proof of the pledge and the return of the part money of the loan. So, the award was vitiated. Besides the above, the award was filed in Court beyond 20 days of the date of its making, So, also the suit was barred by time. 4. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is apparent that both the parties had appeared before the Court and contested the suit, it was the case of the defendant-appellant that the plaintiffs had given to him just two pieces of ornaments and Rs. 2,000.00 was taken as a loan. 4. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is apparent that both the parties had appeared before the Court and contested the suit, it was the case of the defendant-appellant that the plaintiffs had given to him just two pieces of ornaments and Rs. 2,000.00 was taken as a loan. Subsequently, when the plaintiffs appeared before the defendant on the pretext of paying loan, the defendant brought the ornaments to his office and he went back to bring certain papers, but in the meantime, the plaintiffs disappeared with the ornaments and did not return even the loan. The defendant filed a case in which the plaintiffs were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. It was submitted before me that in the case, the plaintiffs were also convicted and sentenced. 5. So, there was contest between the parties whether, of course, ornaments as pledged by the plaintiffs were the same which the defendant was referring or whether the defendants case was true, Both the parties had led oral evidence in this connection. The learned Sub-Judge had referred to certain admission by the defendant specially relating to the alleged pledge contained in the plaint. But the W.S. which the Courts has described coes not refer to any admission of the pledging of ornaments, as alleged by the plaintiffs:. The plaintiffs had remained content with just lodging Sanha whereas the defendant appellant had filed a case against them in which they were arrested and this fact was no denied during the course of hearing before the Court of Sub-Judge. 6. So as the award itself is concerned, Annexure-1 is the Panchnama and the decision thereon. There is reference to 17 panchas but the decision of the panchas bears the signature of only nine panchas. It appears that 10 panchas had gathered but there is no signature of 10th Ranch. So, it appears that he might have dissented. In that case, his dissent should also have been recorded in the decision of the panchas, but there is no such reference. It appears that 10 panchas had gathered but there is no signature of 10th Ranch. So, it appears that he might have dissented. In that case, his dissent should also have been recorded in the decision of the panchas, but there is no such reference. Sec. 14 of the Arbitration Act has laid down that after the decision is made by the panchas, the panchas should transmit the award to the Court along with the proceedings before the Arbitrators, the evidence and the papers filed before it, but the impugned order does not show that the Arbitrators had sent to the Court the proceedings taken before the arbitrators along with papers which were exhibited except served upon the parties. In the order-sheet or the learned Sub-Judge, it has been mentioned that the panchas had examined the papers of the defendant appellant, but what were those papers has not been mentioned in the decision of panchas, nor the same was despatched to the Court. The lower Court, a judgment also does not show the depositions made before the Arbitrator were also sent to the Court of Sub-Judge, Annexure-1 shows that panchas had examined the parties and they had also taken into consideration certain papers of the defendant-appellant, but the impugned judgment of the Sub-Judge does not show that the statement taken by the panchas were sent to the Court of Sub-Judge. From the judgment also, it does not appear that the original award was filed before the Court. The parties were given Photostat Copy of the award and from the judgment it does not appear that the award in its original was submitted to the Court concerned. However, Annexure-1 does not show as to what were the ornaments pledged to the defendant-appellant to be returned to the plaintiff-respondents. Moreover, signature of the panchas is dated 22-6-1993 whereas the heading part of the decision "Panch Faisala" is dated 29-6-1993. This discripancy of dates between 22-6-1993 and 29-6-1913 is also not being explained. The learned Sub-Judge, perhaps, failed to take notice of these technical defects on the alleged award given by the panchas. Perhaps, learned Sub-Judge has also failed to take notice of the time a bar regarding the filing of the award in Court. So, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment is vitiated on account of certain legal infirmities attaching to it. 7. Perhaps, learned Sub-Judge has also failed to take notice of the time a bar regarding the filing of the award in Court. So, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment is vitiated on account of certain legal infirmities attaching to it. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower Court are set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost of this appeal.