148-NLR-NLR-V-03-PERERA-v.FRANCISCO.pdf
1899.
October 13.
( 384 )
PERERA v. FRANCISCO.C. B., Panadure, 3,011.
Arbitration and award—Motion by arbitrator to extend time for makingawa/rd—Civil Procedure Code, e. 683—Validity of award.
Under section 683 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court- haspower to extend the time for delivering the award on the motionof the arbitrator himself beyond the period specified in the originalorder.
/'"'XN the 17th March, 1899, the .matter in dispute between theparties to this case was by consent referred to the sole arbi-tration of Mr. Solomon Fernando, who, by the commission issuedto him, was required to make his award on or before the 11thApril, 1899. On the 14th April the arbitrator moved for anextension of six days’ time to file his award, which was allowed.
The arbitrator filed his award on the 20th April, and it wasmade a judgment of Court.
The award being against the defendant, he appealed on theground that it was illegal and cannot be acted upon, inasmuchas it was not made and filed on or before the 11th April, in termsof the commission issued to him.
Van Langenberg, for defendant, appellant.
Sampayo, for respondent.Cur. adv. vult.
13th October, 1899. Browne, A.J.—
On the 17th March last the parties agreed to" refer the matter indispute to arbitration, whose award, if made within one month fromthe date, should be final. On the 20th March commission was issuedto the arbitrator, who on 14th April moved for, and was allowed(apparently by the motion paper, for the journal entiy is unsigned),six days’ extension of time, and filed his award (I believe from therecital in the petition of appeal) on the 20th April. The arbitrator’sdate of 31st May, on page 65, should apparently be 31st March.
On that day plaintiff’s proctor moved that judgment be enteredin terms of the award, and the record says, “Mr. Silva consents on“ behalf of Mr. Dias (defendant’s proctor), who is ill.” Decree wasentered accordingly, and defendant has appealed in person on theground that the award was not made within the month originallyspecified.•.':
I am of opinion that the Court had power under section 683 toextend the time for delivering the award on the motion of thearbitrator himself beyond “ the period specified in the order.”These words, in my opinion, contemplate that the original orderhas, as section 677 requires, fixed a time reasonable for the deliveryof the award, and therefore the specification of a certain dateat the first does not preclude the extension of the period.
Therefore, and under section 692, I consider this appeal fails,and must be dismissed with costs.