086-NLR-NLR-V-07-PUNCHINONA-v.-ELIAS-APPU.pdf
( 361 )
PUNCHINONA v. ELIAS APPU.D. C., Colombo, 470.
1903.June 23.
Arbitration—Award out of- time—Power of Court to extend the time allowed formaking the award, after award hoe been filed in Court—Civil ProcedureCode, s. 691.f
The District Court has no powtr to extend the time allowed formaking an award after the arbitrator has filed his award in Court.
3-> J
Once the award is made, its power to enlarge the time for making itis gone*
rpHE facts of the case appear in the judgment of Layard, C.J.
M. de Saram, for appellant.
DomhoT8t, K.C., for respondent.
:23rd June, 1903. Layakd, C.J.—The appellant was the administrator of the estate of Kahanda-wala-arachchige Don' Gregoris Appu, deceased. His final accountwas hied on the 19th April, 1900. The respondent to this appealhied a petition on the 22nd October, 1900, praying for a judicialsettlement of the appellant’s account, and the said matter wasreferred to the arbitration of Mr. Advocate Seneviratne on the20th March, 1901.
The arbitrator made his award on the 12th July, 1902, and theappellants on the 11th September, 1902, moved to set aside theaward. The appellant’s main objection to the award was that itwas made outside the period allowed by the Court. The DistrictJudge has held that the award was in fact made twelve days out oftime, but has refused to sec aside the award. He appears toconsider that it would be inequitable to set aside the award onAccount of the few days’ delay iq the making and delivery ofthe award, as it means the loss and waste of all the trouble arql■cost of the inquiry and entails on thei parties further troubleand costs. However much we deplore the results that mustnecessarily follow a reversal of the order of the District Judge inthis case, still we cannot, in view of the provisions of section691 of the Civil Procedure Ctfde* hold that the award is good.That section expressly enacts that no award is valid unlessmade within the period allowed by the Court. This award was
1903.June 23.
Layabd
C.J.
( 352 )
admittedly not made within such period, and is consequentlyinvalid.
The arbitrator is the person really responsible lor the troubleand costs the parties have been put to in this case, and 1 think hewill see his way to refund the fee charged by him as arbitrator,so as to reduce as far as possible the costs of the arbitration inquirywhich has been abortive entirely owing to his neglect in notTTudring his award in .time, surd not applying to the Court forfurther time before pronouncing his award.
The award must be set aside and the proceedings returnedto the District Court so that the appellant’s account may be judi-cially settled by the District Judge. The appellant is entitled tohis costs of appeal.
Wendt, J.—
I also think that the award cannot be sustained. The DistrictJudge appears to have considered that he had the power to extendthe time for the making of the award even after the award wasmade and filed in Court. That was the view taken by the IndianCourts in the ease of Har Narain v. Bhagwant (I. L. R. 10 All:137), but the Privy Council, reversing their decision, emphasized'the words of section 521 of the Indian Code of Civil Procedure,which also appear in section 691 of our Code: “ No award shall bevalid unless made within the period allowed by the Court,” andheld that once the award was made, the power of the Court teenlarge the time for making it was spent and could not be exer-cised (I. L. R. 13 All. 300). The award in the present action istherefore invalid, and the appeal must be allowed.