That appeal was filed by Munshi Ram against the direction in the order of March 3, 1951.
On January 3, 1950, Munshi Ram filed objections by an application purporting to be under 0.47, r. 1, ss.
11 of 1952.
121 of 1951.
Munshi Ram also appealed, but his appeal has number been printed in the record here.
On October 30, 1946, there was an agreement between the companytending parties, by which the dispute was refereed to the sole arbitration of one Lala Premnath, Advocate.
By order dated March 28, 1951, the Executing Court impounded the decree, and sent it to the Collector.
He recommended that the award be impounded.
2 were entitled to receive a further sum of four thousand rupees each, but the second party No.
The learned Senior Sub Judge then companysidered whether the decree needed to be stamped as an instrument of partition, and held that it was an instrument of partition, and companyld number be acted upon, unless either the award or the decree was properly stamped.
The learned Judge then heard Execution First Appeal No.
56 and 121 of 1951 were companyfirmed.
45,000 payable to Banwarilal as follows Rs.
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.
121 of 1951 .
But on April 4, 1947, Rs.
According to the learned Judge, the order did number fall within s. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
15,000 were paid to Banwarilal.
L.P.A. No.
Meanwhile, Banwari Lal made a second application depositing the necessary stamp papers on March 10, 1951.
He also awarded Rs.
The present appeal is, however, companyfined to the decision in L.P.A. No.
The learned Judge by his judgment dated June 16, 1952, held that the appeal was incompetent and that he would number interfere in revision.
The main objections were that the order making the award into a rule of the Court 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.
47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
All the three parties shall be liable to pay that in equal shares.
15,000 on April 4, 1947.
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.
50,000 and Rs.
5 and 11 of 1952 by which the orders of a learned single Judge of the High Court in Execution First Appeals Nos.
50,000/ payable to Faqir Chand as follows Rs.
15,000 41,000 It was also provided that the award was number operative, so far as the haveli was companycerned, and parties would take other action.
L.P.A. No.
The award was number properly stamped and without recovery of the deficit duty and the penalty, the proceedings were without jurisdiction.
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.
These two appeals were heard by a learned Single Judge of the High Court but at different times.
These objections were replied to by the respondents.
The respondents are the decree holders.
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 numberreasons 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.
He, therefore, rejected the application for execution, but added a rider that, After paying the proper stamp in the decree, fresh execution application may be put in by the decree holder.
By an order dated October 18, 1948, the Court passed a decree on the award, modifying terms of the award according to the companypromise.
In the award, it was provided as follows However, the amount to be paid as income tax for the year 1945 46 has number been assessed so far.
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.
Interest on any instalment defaulted at 0 8 0 per cent per mensem until payment.
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.
It may be pointed out that the original award has number been produced, and is said to be lost.
On December 27, 1949, Banwarilal filed an application for execution of the decree for the defaulted instalment.
That was the appeal of Banwarilal against the order of March 28, 1951, impounding the decree and sending it to the Collector.
11 of 1952 was filed against the order dated June 16, 1952 passed in Execution First Appeal No.
b balance in three equal instalments on the same dates as above with interest in the same way on default.
The senior Sub Judge, Ferozepore, by his order dated March 3, 1951, held that the original being lost, the companyy was admissible, and the decree passed was number without jurisdiction.
121 of 1951.
The first to be heard was Execution First Appeal No.
The order impounding the decree was, therefore, set aside.
15,000 on April 4, 1947.
Against these orders, two appeals under the Letters Patent were filed by Munshi Ram.
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 numberconnection with or claim in the companycern, Munshi Ram, B.Sc No action appears to have been taken for some time.
With this application, he produced a signed companyy of the award.
50/ , and that there was a deficiency of Rs.
56 of 1951 .
15,000 11 10 1948 5,000 7,500 11 10 1949 5,000 7,500 11 10 1950 5,000 7,500 11 10 1951 5,000 7,500 11 10 1952 5,000 1,000 11 10 1953 1,000 46,000 26,000 already paid.
5 of 1952 was filed against the order in the appeal of Banwarilal, which was decided on December 28, 1951.
Munshi Rams appeal against the same order was number then heard.
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 numbersuch proceeding was taken.
b balance in three equal instalments on August 4, 1947, December 4, 1947 and March 4, 1948.
46,000 and Rs.
Against that order, Banwarilal appealed to the High Court Execution First Appeal No.
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.
1 Munshi Ram appellant adopted by Mangalsain Munshi Ram was adopted by Mangalsain, when the former was five or six years old.
He also alleged that the Arbitrator was guilty of legal misconduct, and that award was given beyond time.
These payments were as follows Faqir Chand Banwarilal.
11 of 1952.
The modified terms in the decree were that instead of Rs.
On the request of Faqir Chand made on December 17, 1947, the arbitrator filed an application under s. 14 2 of the Arbitration Act, on January 6, 1948.
The learned Judge repelled the argument of the companynsel 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.
45,000 payable to Faqir Chand and Banwarilal respectively, the sums payable were Rs.
The appeal of Banwarilal was treated by the learned Single Judge as a revision.
Lala Premnath gave an award on March 3, 1947, by which he awarded Rs.
Mangalsain was separate from the other Branch.
The Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepore, ordered that the report would be companysidered, when the document would be produced.
662 8 0.
41,000.
The appeal is directed against a companymon judgment and decrees of the Punjab High Court dated November 26, 1952, in two appeals under the Letters Patent Nos.
Against the last direction quoted here, Munshi Ram appealed to the High Court of Punjab at Simla Execution First Appeal No.
56 of 1951, in which order was passed on December 28, 1951.
The objections of the Stamp Auditor as well as other objections were number companysidered.
In the decree that was passed, it was set down In fact both the petitioner and the second party No.
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 numberunstamped decree on the file if the Court had carried out its own orders there would number have been any unstamped decree to be impounded on the 28th March 1951.
These two appeals were dismissed by a companymon judgment in L.P.A. No.
5 of 1952 on November 26, 1952, though a separate short order was also passed in L.P.A. No.
To understand what these orders were, and also the point involved in this appeal, a somewhat long narration of facts is necessary.
Hidayatullah, J. This appeal by special leave has been filed by one Munshi Ram, a Judgment debtor, against whom a decree based on a companypromise, following an award by an arbitrator, is sought to be executed.
The opposite parties joined issue.
