Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3 (RAJ)

Damodar v. LRs of Gokul Das

2016-01-04

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against rejection of their application under Sections 151 and 152 CPC seeking amendment/correction in the decree prepared pursuant to the judgment dated 08.12.1976. 2. On account of certain dispute between the petitioner No.1 and his brothers, Arbitrators were appointed, who gave their award dated 08.02.1973; application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed before the District Judge, Pratapgarh for making the said award rule of the Court; the application was accepted by the District Judge by judgment dated 08.12.1976 and the award was made rule of the Court and it was directed that decree be framed; where after it appears that decree was framed, however, after passage of almost 27 years an application was filed under Sections 151 and 152 CPC on 15.12.2003 seeking amendment in the decree. 3. The application was opposed by other parties and after hearing the parties, the District Judge by his order dated 07.07.2015 came to the conclusion that the application is not bona fide and has been filed with ulterior motive to disturb the arbitral award and that the objection was raised after lapse of 30 years, the award had become final upto the High Court and in garb of application under Section 152 CPC the dispute cannot be revived on merits and rejected the application with a cost of Rs.20,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the District Judge was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners as there was apparent mistake in the decree and it was incumbent on the District Judge to correct the said mistake and the order passed is contrary to the facts, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside; it was submitted that the application was bona fide and District Judge wrongly imposed cost of Rs.20,000/- on the petitioners. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record. 6. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record. 6. From the facts noticed herein before, whereby the award was passed way back in the year 1973, the same was made rule of the Court in the year 1976 and was upheld by the Single Judge and Division Bench of this Court way back in the year 1985 and where after the application was filed in the year 2003 i.e. after a passage of over 18 years from the date the award became final with the dismissal of special appeal by Division Bench of this Court. 7. The above conduct of the petitioners was rightly held as mala fide by the District Judge, inasmuch as, in the entire application, the petitioners have failed to point out the cause and/or the reason which brought the alleged mistake to their notice and which could not be gathered by them over a period of 27 years since the passing of the judgment making the award rule of the Court. The attempt on the part of the petitioners is apparently to revive the dispute, which award stood settled way back in the year 1976/1985, which attempt cannot be said to be bona fide. Even otherwise, even on merits there is no substance in the application filed by the petitioners, as provisions of Sections 151 and 152 CPC cannot be invoked for the purpose of undoing and/or reviving the past and concluded transactions. So far as imposition of cost of Rs.20,000/- is concerned, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the imposition of costs was unjustified or excessive. 8. In view of the above, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.