AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition is directed against the order of the Senior Sub Judge, Hoshirpur, whereby application for amendment of the written statement was allowed vide order dated May 3, 1988.
The petitioner M/s. Mahavir Spinning Mills filed application under S. 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act for filing in Court the arbitration agreement. The said application was allowed and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The matter remained pending for about three years before the Arbitrator and when it reached the stage of arguments, the respondents moved an application in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur for amendment of the reply dated April 9, 1985 filed in the application under S. 20 of the Act. That application was resisted on behalf of the petitioner, inter alia, on the grounds that no such application was maintainable and the Court had no jurisdiction to decide the same. However, the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur took the view that the Court had the inherent jurisdiction to decide the application and since according to the learned Senior Sub Judge, the respondent did not want to introduce new things except to specify the claim in detail, he allowed the amendment sought for.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the application under S. 20 of the Act was decided the Court had become functus officio and the said order was appealable under S. 39 of the Act. According to the learned counsel sub-sec. (5) of S. 20 of the Arbitration Act provides that thereafter the arbitration shall proceed in accordance with, and shall be governed by, the other provisions of this Act so far as they can be made applicable. Thus, argued the learned counsel that after the matter was finally decided by the Court under S. 20 of the Act, the Court had no jurisdiction to pass any order as such. Thus, the Court has acted illegally with material irregularities in exercise of its jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he referred to Bhikarilal Vs. Dibyasingh Brahma and Others, and Indian Minerals Co. v. Northern India Lime Marketing Association AIR 1958 Ap 692.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent referred to Kundan Lal and Another Vs. Mehtab Ram and Another, .
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find merits in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.
The moment application under S. 20 is finally decided by the Court, the Court becomes functus officio. If any party aggrieved of the order passed therein can file an appeal as provided under S. 39 of the Act. Admittedly in the present case, the application was disposed of on February 6, 1985. It is unfortunate that the matter remained pending before the Arbitrator for about three years and when it reached the final stage of arguments, the respondents moved an application for making amendments in the reply to the application under S. 20 of the Act. No such application was maintainable at that stage. The view taken by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Hoshiarpur in this behalf was wholly wrong and illegal.
In the The Indian Minerals Co. Vs. The Northern India Lime Marketing Association, , while considering the provisions of the Arbitration Act it was observed that "the provisions of O.6, R. 17 of the CPC are therefore fully available to the Civil Judge and the Civil Judge can at any stage before the reference is made to the Arbitrator, allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such term as are just and necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. "It is, therefore, evident that before the reference was made to the Arbitrator, the amendment, if any, could be allowed. But once the reference was made, the function of the Court was over and it was no more seized of the matter. The judgment reported in Kundan Lal and Another Vs. Mehtab Ram and Another, , relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent has no applicability to the facts of the present case.
Consequently this petition succeeds and the impugned order is set aside.
Since at the time of motion hearing the proceedings before the Arbitrator were stayed, the parties are directed to appear before the Arbitrator on September 19, 1989. The Arbitrator will give his award within four months thereof in accordance with law.
Petition allowed.