the learned judge by his judgment dated june 16 1952 held that the appeal was incompetent and that he would number interfere in revision.
number 11 of 1952.
these objections were replied to by the respondents.
to understand what these orders were and also the point involved in this appeal a somewhat long narration of facts is necessary.
these two appeals were heard by a learned single judge of the high companyrt but at different times.
interest on any instalment defaulted at 0 8 0 per cent per mensem until payment.
the following genealogy gives the relationship of the parties kanhaiyalal mangalsain munshi ram adopted faqirchand banwarilal respdt.
lala premnath gave an award on march 3 1947 by which he awarded rs.50000/ payable to faqir chand as follows rs.15000 on april 4 1947.
he therefore rejected the application for execution but added a rider that after paying the proper stamp on the decree fresh execution application may be put in by the decree holder.
there was also an award about the residential house called haveli which was given in moieties to faqir chand and banwarilal including the portion built by munshi ram.
2 respd.
the rest of the immovable property was given to munshi ram as his self acquired property and it was declared that faqir chand and banwarilal would have no connection with or claim in the companycern munshi ram b.sc numberaction appears to have been taken for some time.
that appeal was filed by munshi ram against the direction in the order of march 3 1951.
number 5 of 1952 was filed against the order in the appeal of banwarilal which was decided on december 28 1951.
but on april 4 1947 rs.15 000 were paid to banwarilal.
according to the learned judge the order did number fall within s. 47 of the companye of civil procedure.
against the last direction quoted here munshi ram appealed to the high companyrt of punjab at simla execution first appeal number 121 of 1951 .
l.p.a.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated numberember 26 1952 of the punjab high court in l.p.a.
by an order dated october 18 1948 the companyrt passed a decree on the award modifying terms of the award according to the companypromise.
56 and 121 of 1951 were companyfirmed.
the learned judge then heard execution first appeal number 121 of 1951.
meanwhile banwari lal made a second application depositing the necessary stamp papers on march 10 1951.
45000 payable to faqir chand and banwarilal respectively the sums payable were rs.46000 and rs.
the first to be heard was execution first appeal number 56 of 1951 in which order was passed on december 28 1951.
munshi ram also appealed but his appeal has number been printed in the record here.
the learned judge repelled the argument of the counsel for munshi ram who urged that the decree was a nullity or was unexecutable which he held did number arise at all in that appeal treated as a revision.
l.p.a.
it may be pointed out that the original award has number been produced and is said to be lost.
against that order banwarilal appealed to the high companyrt execution first appeal number 56 of 1951 .
with this application he produced a signed companyy of the award.
on february 19 1948 the stamp auditor reported that according to the endorsement on the companyy of the award the original was written on a stamp paper of the value of rs.50/ and that there was a deficiency of rs.662 8 0.
it appears that the other appeal against the order of march 28 1951 by munshi ram was also heard but it was also dismissed though no reasons appear to have been given separately perhaps because the order appealed against had already been set aside by the learned judge in the appeal decided on december 28 1951.
the objections of the stamp auditor as well as other objections were number considered.
41000.
that was the appeal of banwarilal against the order of march 28 1951 impounding the decree and sending it to the collector.
these two appeals were dismissed by a companymon judgment in p.a.
the learned judge observed i am of the opinion that the court was justified in number proceeding with the execution application on the 3rd march 1951.
he recommended that the award be impounded.
number 11 of 1952 was filed against the order dated june 16 1952 passed in execution first appeal number 121 of 1951.
the main objections were that the order making the award into a rule of the companyrt after modifying it was void without jurisdiction invalid and against law on the following grounds the original award was number filed and only the original companyld be modified and number a companyy.
munshi rams appeal against the same order was number then heard.
against these orders two appeals under the letters patent were filed by munshi ram.
by order dated march 28 1951 the executing court impounded the decree and sent it to the collector.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah j. this appeal by special leave has been filed by one munshi ram a judgment debtor against whom a decree based on a compromise following an award by an arbitrator is sought to be executed.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 178 of 1956.
the proceedings which had been brought on an application dated the 27th of december 1949 had ended on the 3rd of march 1951 and companyld number be reopened unless some proper proceedings had been taken and no such proceeding was taken.
b balance in three equal instalments on august 4 1947 december 4 1947 and march 4 1948.
but once on an application made by the decree holder it had ordered the stamp duty to be put in and the stamp had been put in the decree passed had become a properly stamped decree.
the order impounding the decree was therefore set aside.
he also awarded rs.45000 payable to banwarilal as follows rs.15000 on april 4 1947.
nanak chand for respondents 1 a and 1 b .
on december 27 1949 banwarilal filed an application for execution of the decree for the defaulted instalment.
the appeal of banwarilal was treated by the learned single judge as a revision.
the award was number properly stamped and without recovery of the deficit duty and the penalty the proceedings were without jurisdiction.
number 5 of 1952 on numberember 26 1952 though a separate short order was also passed in l.p.a.
5 and 11 of 1952 by which the orders of a learned single judge of the high companyrt in execution first appeals number.
on january 31950 munshi ram filed objections by an application purporting to be under o.47r.1 ss.47 and 151 of the companye of civil procedure.
meanwhile it appears that there was some further settlement and the parties stated that they were prepared to have a decree passed in accordance with the terms accepted by them.
1 munshi ram appellant adopted by mangalsain munshi ram was adopted by mangalsain when the former was five or six years old.
on july 11 1948 munshi ram made an application for setting aside the award on the following among other grounds a that the award was insufficiently stamped and b that the award was number registered.
the appeal is directed against a common judgment and decrees of the punjab high court dated numberember 26 1952 in two appeals under the letters patent number.
50000 and rs.
number 11 of 1952.
the respondents are the decree holders.
the present appeal is however companyfined to the decision in p.a.number11 of 1952.
he also alleged that the arbitrator was guilty of legal misconduct and that the award was given beyond time.
on the other hand on the 10th of march banwari lal applied that stamp duty be allowed to be put in which was allowed and therefore after the proper stamp duty had been put in there was left no unstamped decree on the fileif the companyrt had carried out its own orders there would number have been any unstamped decree to be impounded on the 28th march 1951.
mangalsain was separate from the other branch.
the modified terms in the decree were that instead of rs.
january 9.
s. pathak and g. c. mathur for the appellant.
