Amreli District Panchayat. Vs. Govindji Gordhandas and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

[p. sathasivam ; h.l. gokhale, j.j.] - the indian penal code, 1860 section 302 - punishment for murder -- sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav was instituted. sunil yadav was instituted. on 29.04.1997, about 5:30 a.m., at nawada sadar hospital, si anil kumar gupta recorded the statement of sunil yadav s/o musafir yadav and on the basis of his statement fir no 12/97 was registered with govindpur p.s under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 447 ipc against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, suresh yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav. the charge-sheet bearing no. 12/97 was submitted in fir no. 11/97 p.s. govindpur, on 30.06.1997 against brahamdeo yadav, sunil yadav, darogi mahto, maho yadav, paro mahto, kuldeep yadav, sudhir yadav, bale yadav, shivan yadav and suraj yadav and sunil yadav who was later instituted. the charge sheet bearing no. 36/97 was also submitted in fir no. 12/97 p.s. govindpur, on 17.12.1997 against upendra yadav, rambalak yadav, basudev yadav, anil yadav, manager yadav, ganuari yadav, damodar yadav, umesh yadav, muni yadav and naresh yadav except suresh yadav s/o kesho yadav as he..........this civil revision application was admitted and rule was issued on 30.7.2004. while admitting the civil revision application this court has observed in its order that the applicant had taken objection that the arbitration proceeding would not survive in view of the decree passed by the civil court, at amreli in special civil suit no.64 of 1987, since there would be a bar for further proceedings imposed by section 35 of the arbitration act. the other side has raised the contention that the section 35 would operate only when the civil court decided the whole claim made by the petitioner.3. at the time of final hearing of this civil revision application mr.n.l.ramnani, learned advocate appearing for mr.g.t.dayani, for the opponent no.1, submits that against the decree passed by the civil court the opponent no.1 has filed first appeal no.1057 of 1999 which was subsequently transferred to the district court by virtue of change in the legal provisions and the said appeal has already been decided by the district court pursuant to which the opponent no.1 has already paid the entire amount. he has, therefore, submitted that nothing survives in this civil revision application.4......

Judgment:

1. The applicant original opponent No.1 i.e. Amreli District Panchayat has filed this Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.10.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Ahmedabad (Rural) in Misc. Civil Application No.42 of 1998, whereby the said application was allowed and time was extended for the period of four months from the date of the order to publish the award by the Arbitrator.

2. This Civil Revision Application was admitted and rule was issued on 30.7.2004. While admitting the Civil Revision Application this Court has observed in its order that the applicant had taken objection that the arbitration proceeding would not survive in view of the decree passed by the Civil Court, at Amreli in Special Civil Suit No.64 of 1987, since there would be a bar for further proceedings imposed by Section 35 of the Arbitration Act. The other side has raised the contention that the Section 35 would operate only when the Civil Court decided the whole claim made by the petitioner.

3. At the time of final hearing of this Civil Revision Application Mr.N.L.Ramnani, learned advocate appearing for Mr.G.T.Dayani, for the opponent No.1, submits that against the decree passed by the Civil Court the opponent No.1 has filed First Appeal No.1057 of 1999 which was subsequently transferred to the District Court by virtue of change in the legal provisions and the said Appeal has already been decided by the District Court pursuant to which the opponent No.1 has already paid the entire amount. He has, therefore, submitted that nothing survives in this Civil Revision Application.

4. The opponents Nos.2 and 3 are formal parties. The opponent No.2 is the State Government on which rule was already issued and Ms.Mini Nair, learned Assistant Government Pleader is present in the Court, waives service of notice of rule and submits that appropriate order be passed in this Civil Revision Application. The opponent No.3 is sole arbitrator. Despite service of notice nobody appears on behalf of opponent No.3.

5. Mr.P.J. Kanabar, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, submits that the amount has already been paid pursuant to the order passed by the District Court.

6. In the above view of the matter, this Civil Revision Application is accordingly disposed off. Rule is discharged without any order as to costs.