On April 9, 1960 the respondent started Execution Case No.
On November 9, 1953 an application in the form of a written statement on behalf of Lakhan Lal was filed setting forth the objections to the award and praying that the award be set aside and the suit be dismissed.
The Munsif made an order for delivery of possession.
125 in village Ramgarh.
He observed that only Lakhan Lal and the respondent were parties to the arbitration and the appellant had numberlocus standi to be added as a party.
On June 6, 1961 the respondent filed an application against the appellant under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
He added If that award is enforced and decree passed on its basis, parties companycerning the award are to be bound by that and number body else.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant after obtaining special leave from this Court.
Thereafter the objections to the award were vigorously pressed by the heirs of Lakhan Lal.
By an order dated June 13, 1956 the Munsif dismissed the application.
At this stage the appellant filed an application for being added as a party.
The respondent filed a revision petition Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
He observed that as the appellants prayer for being added as a party to the proceedings in T. S. No.
But numbersteps were taken for adding them as parties.
As the attorney of Lakhan Lal, the appellant filed an application for setting aside the award within the time prescribed by Article 158 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 and thereafter actively companyducted the proceedings.
against his benamidar.
On December 17, 1963 the High Court al lowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the Munsif and directed the executing companyrt to deliver possession of the land to the respondent.
160 of 1951.
160 of 1951 had been rejected he was number bound by the decree passed.
To that suit the appellant would have had numberdefence.
The respondent filed an appeal from this decree.
On December 18, 1962 the Munsif dismissed the application.
The award was filed in the companyrt of the Additional Munsif Hazaribagh and the proceeding under Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 was marked as T. S. No.
Like Lakhan Lal, his heirs companytinued to represent the appellant in the proceedings.
On May 16, 1951 the arbitrator made his award.
Had the High Court dismissed the revision petition on the ground that it had numberjurisdiction to interfere with the Munsifs order, the respondent would have immediately filed a suit under Order 21, Rule 23 C. P. C. to establish his right to the property.
The number joinder of the appellant as a party did number cause him any prejudice.
The respondent claimed the land on the basis of another settlement from the Ramgarh Raj.
Eventually the respondent and Lakhan Lal agreed to refer the dispute to the arbitration of one Bateshwar Prasad Singh.
The appellant relied on the decision in Mata Prasad v. Ram Charan Sahu, ILR 36 All 446 AIR 1914 All 173 .
If out of the suit land under award Mr. Ragho Prasad Gupta is the owner and in possession of 4 decimal out of 8 decimal land and if he was number a party to that award the decree if allowed on the basis of that award in question shall number bind him.
58 of 1960 in the companyrt of the Munsif, Hazaribagh, asking for delivery of possession of the land in accordance with the award decree.
Upon service of the numberice, the proceeding for enforcement of the award under Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act companymenced.
It is number companymon case that in obtaining this settlement he acted as the benamidar of the appellant.
The decree in accordance with the award was passed in 1958 For over 16 years the respondent has been deprived of the property awarded to him.
There were proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of the respondent against the appellant and Lakhan Lal.
On May 22, 1961 the appellant obstructed the companyrt peon in giving possession of the property.
On December 22, 1956 the Munsif dismissed the suit and declined to pass a decree in terms of the award mainly on the ground that Bateshwar Prasad was disqualified from acting as an arbitrator.
This point was number taken in the High Court.
The reason was that some defences open to her sons were number open to her and the decree against her was based on the finding that she was number the benamidar for her sons and did number represent them.
In somewhat similar circumstances the Calcutta High Court held in Prokash Chandra v. Mahima Ranjan that the decree against the heirs of the benamidar bound the real owner.
On May 16, 1956 the appellant filed an application praying that he be joined as a defendant.
The appellant was number a necessary party in the proceeding.
In that case, a suit for sale on a mortgage was brought against the ostensible purchaser of the mortgaged property.
On July 18, 1958 the 1st Additional Sub ordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, allowed the appeal, dismissed all the objections and passed a decree in terms of the award.
The appellant who held a special power of attorney from Lakhan Lal verified and signed the written statement On July 1, 1955, Lakhan Lal died and his heirs were substituted in his place in the proceedings.
and Lakhan Lal, the two parties to the arbitration agreement.
On April 30, 1956 the heirs of Lakhan Lal filed a written statement adopting the earlier written statement and stating that the appellant was the real owner and a necessary party.
The award was filed in companyrt and the numberice of the filing of the award was given to the appellant respondent?
439, Khata No.
S. Bachawat, J. One Lakhan Lal obtained from the Ramgarh Raj a settle ment in respect of .08 acre of land in Plot No.
