(O&M) Rachpal Singh (Deceased) through LRs and another . . . . Pe66oners v. Surinder Singh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: October 31, 2025 Pronounced on: November 03, 2025 CR No.779 of 2002 (O&M) Rachpal Singh (Deceased) through LRs and another . . . . Pe66oners Vs. Surinder Singh (Deceased) through LRs and others . . . . Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA * * * * Argued By:- Mr. Surinder Dhull, Advocate for pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner No.1. Mr. B.S. Mann, Mr. G.S. Nagra and Mr. P.S. Chahal, Advocates For pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner No.2. Mr. M.S. Sachdev and Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocates for the respondents. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Background : Rachpal Singh and Bhagwant Singh, two brothers (hereina+er referred to as “pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oners”), have approached this Court assailing the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below i.e., (i) order dated 07.10.1995 passed by the learned Addi(cid:31)onal Senior Sub-Judge, Nakodar, whereby the arbitral award dated 22.04.1992 on applica(cid:31)on moved by Surinder (respondent herein) was made the Rule of the Court; and (ii) judgment dated 13.12.2001 passed by the learned Addi(cid:31)onal District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby their appeal was dismissed as not maintainable under Sec(cid:31)on 39 of the Arbitra(cid:16)on Act, 1940. Facts Leading to the Dispute : Surinder Singh (since deceased, now represented through his LRs and hereina+er referred to as “respondent No.1”) was a tenant under the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oners in respect of the property in dispute. Due to certain disputes rela(cid:31)ng to possession and rent, several Sarita Rani 2025.11.03 16:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order CR No.779 of 2002 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:151036 proceedings, civil, revenue, and criminal, came to be filed between the par(cid:31)es. It was alleged by respondent Surinder Singh that he was forcibly dispossessed by pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oners herein and their father Ajit Singh, but his possession was restored through Court orders, though fresh proceedings for ejectment were pending before the competent authori(cid:31)es. Amidst these li(cid:31)ga(cid:31)ons, with the interven(cid:31)on of common friends and rela(cid:31)ves, the par(cid:31)es purportedly agreed to refer all disputes to a panel of Arbitrators –
Facts
[respondent N: 3 to 7 before trial court] (respondents Nos.2 to 6 herein). An agreement dated 22.04.1992 was executed at Nakodar to this effect, and on the same day, the Arbitrators rendered their award. 3. The Arbitra(cid:11)on Award : The award dated 22.04.1992 directed that out of the total land measuring 31 kanals 8 marlas, land measuring 28 kanals 11 marlas be transferred to Surinder Singh upon payment of ₹1.60 lakhs, and that the sale deed was to be executed by 30.11.1992. Copies of the award were supplied to both par(cid:31)es. 4. According to Surinder Singh (pe(cid:16)(cid:16)oner before trial court), he complied with the award by withdrawing pending li(cid:31)ga(cid:31)ons and demanded execu(cid:31)on of the sale deed, but the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oners herein (respondents N: 1 & 2 before trial court) failed to perform their part. Consequently, he filed an applica(cid:31)on under Sec(cid:31)ons 14 and 17 of the Arbitra(cid:31)on Act, 1940 on 05.05.1992, praying that the award be made Rule of the Court. 5. Stand of Pe66oners herein : In their wriFen statement, the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oners herein admiFed that li(cid:31)ga(cid:31)ons between the par(cid:31)es were pending before various authori(cid:31)es but denied having authorised respondents Nos.3 to 7 to act as Arbitrators. They contended that the alleged agreement dated 22.04.1992 was forged and obtained under coercion in connivance with the Arbitrators, who had no authority to adjudicate upon the ques(cid:31)on of sale of land. They also alleged that no proper procedure was followed, as the award was pronounced on the very day the alleged reference was made. An informa(cid:31)on regarding the alleged forgery was stated to have been lodged with the police on 08.05.1992. Sarita Rani 2025.11.03 16:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 2 of 7 CR No.779 of 2002 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:151036 6. Proceedings Before the Trial Court : The trial Court directed the Arbitrators to file the original award along with the proceedings, which was done on 11.05.1994 in the presence of counsel for both sides. Neither party filed objec(cid:31)ons within the limita(cid:31)on period prescribed under Ar(cid:16)cle 119 of the Limita(cid:16)on Act, 1963. Subsequently, on 30.01.1995, Surinder Singh moved an applica(cid:31)on for making the award as Rule of the Court. Instead of filing objec(cid:31)ons or seeking condona(cid:31)on of delay, the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oners filed an applica(cid:31)on on 01.04.1995 seeking amendment of their wriFen statement to treat it as objec(cid:31)ons to the award. They also sought direc(cid:31)on to produce the original award. However, the applica(cid:31)on under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was withdrawn and dismissed as not pressed on 01.06.1995. 7. A+er considering the record, the trial Court held that since the award was filed in the presence of counsel for both sides, the par(cid:31)es were deemed to have no(cid:31)ce of its filing and no formal no(cid:31)ce was required. Relying on Nikantha Sidramappa Ningashe(cid:31) vs. Kashinath Somanna Ningashe(cid:31) (AIR 1962 SC 666), and Indian Rayon Corpora(cid:11)on Ltd. Vs Raunaq and Company Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 1988 SC 2054), the trial Court concluded that the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oners had failed to file objec(cid:31)ons within limita(cid:31)on and accordingly, made the award dated 22.04.1992 as the Rule of the Court vide order dated 07.10.1995. 8. Appeal : Aggrieved, the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oners herein preferred an appeal, which was dismissed on 13.12.2001. The Appellate Court held that the appeal itself was not maintainable under Sec(cid:16)on 39 of the Arbitra(cid:16)on Act, 1940, and even on merits, no ground was made out to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the trial Court. 9.
Legal Reasoning
25.08.2000 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP Nos. 2972 of 1998 and 11682 of 1997, wherein ejectment orders against Surinder Singh were upheld. That order, having aFained finality, rendered the arbitra(cid:31)on award unenforceable. vi. Non-considera(cid:16)on of addi(cid:16)onal evidence: Despite the above order dated 25.08.2000 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP Nos. 2972 of 1998 and 11682 of 1997 being placed on record as addi(cid:31)onal evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the Appellate Court failed to ap- preciate its effect. vii. Haste in filing proceedings: The applica(cid:31)on to make the award Rule of the Court was filed merely 13 days a+er the alleged award, showing collusion between Surinder Singh and the Arbitrators. It is thus contended that the concurrent findings of the Courts below suffer from grave illegality and non-applica(cid:31)on of mind. 10. This Court has considered submissions of learned counsel for the par(cid:31)es and perused the en(cid:31)re record carefully. 11. Analysis and Findings by this Court: The factual matrix indicates that the central issue revolves around the validity of the reference and the enforceability of the award dated 22.04.1992, par(cid:31)cularly in light of the subsequent ejectment orders affirmed by this Court on 25.08.2000. The maFer, therefore, requires apprecia(cid:31)on of whether the Arbitrators were duly authorised and whether the award, allegedly executed without proper Sarita Rani 2025.11.03 16:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 4 of 7 CR No.779 of 2002 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:151036 reference and signed only by one party, could legally be made as the Rule of the Court. 12. Upon considera(cid:31)on of the submissions advanced and the material available on record, certain undisputed facts emerge. The alleged reference and the award are both dated 22.04.1992. The award purports to decide not only the disputes between a landlord and tenant, but also directs transfer of ownership of agricultural land, a subject far beyond the limited scope of tenancy or revenue disputes then pending between the par(cid:31)es. 13. It is also apparent that the reference agreement bears the signature only of Rachpal Singh, and neither Surinder Singh (the alleged claimant) nor Bhagwant Singh (the co-owner) has signed the same. No power of aForney authorising Rachpal Singh to enter into arbitra(cid:31)on or agreeing to sale of immovable property has been produced on file. These facts are not disputed before this court. 14. However, by placing Reliance upon Ramchandra Ram Nag Ram Rice and Oil Mills Limited vs. Howrah Oil Mills Ltd AIR 1958 Calcu8a 620, it is urged by Ld. counsel for the respondent that an arbitra(cid:31)on agreement is not required to be signed by both the par(cid:31)es under sec(cid:31)on 2 (a) of the Arbitra(cid:31)on Act, 1940 and that acceptance of terms can be established through conduct, Oral agreement, or wri(cid:31)ng. Further reference is made to Jugal Kishore Rameshwar Das versus Mrs. Goolbai Homusuji AIR 1955 Supreme Court 812 to contend that it is not necessary that arbitra(cid:31)on agreement should be signed by the par(cid:31)es and that it is sufficient if the terms are reduced to wri(cid:31)ng and the agreement to the par(cid:31)es thereto is established. 15. I’m afraid that the abovesaid conten(cid:31)on is devoid of any merit. First of all, the power of aForney purported to have been executed by Bhagwant Singh in favour of Rachhpal Singh, having not been placed on record, it is not established that said Bhagwant Singh had agreed for the arbitra(cid:31)on or had authorised Rachhpal Singh to enter into an arbitra(cid:31)on agreement or refer the maFer to the arbitrator. Further, there is nothing to Sarita Rani 2025.11.03 16:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 5 of 7 CR No.779 of 2002 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:151036 establish that par(cid:31)es had agreed to sale of the disputed property on any of the terms. The reference was not made for this purpose. As such, cited authori(cid:31)es do not advance the case of respondent herein. 16. Further, the Arbitrators’ own statements confirm that the award was announced on the very date of the alleged reference. Such simultaneous execu(cid:31)on of the reference and pronouncement of award casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the proceedings and violates the seFled principles of arbitra(cid:31)on under the Indian Arbitra(cid:31)on Act, 1940, which require independent applica(cid:31)on of mind, delibera(cid:31)on, and opportunity to both sides. 17. The trial Court proceeded to make the award as Rule of the Court merely on the ground that no objec(cid:31)ons had been filed within limita(cid:31)on. However, once the very existence of a valid reference is under challenge, the absence of objec(cid:31)ons cannot confer jurisdic(cid:31)on upon the Court to treat a void award as enforceable. The bar of limita(cid:31)on cannot legalize an award, which is void ab ini(cid:31)o for want of authority or consent of the par(cid:31)es. 18. Further, the Division Bench judgment dated 25.08.2000 passed by this Court in CWP Nos.2972 of 1998 and 11682 of 1997, affirming the ejectment of Surinder Singh from the very property forming part of the alleged award, has aFained finality. The findings therein conclusively establish that the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oners herein were owners, and that Surinder Singh had no subsis(cid:31)ng right or interest in the property. It has not been disputed by Ld. Counsel for the contes(cid:31)ng respondent that property involved in the arbitral award was also part of these CWPs. Once such a determina(cid:31)on has aFained finality, the arbitra(cid:31)on award, which purported to transfer ownership rights to Surinder Singh, becomes wholly unenforceable and contrary to the judicial pronouncements of this Court. 19.
Arguments
Conten(cid:11)ons in the Present Civil Revision : Learned counsel for the pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oners has raised the following principal submissions: i. Absence of valid reference: There was no lawful or joint reference to arbitra(cid:31)on, as the alleged reference dated 22.04.1992 bears the signa- ture only of pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner No.1 (Rachpal Singh) and neither of pe(cid:31)(cid:31)oner No.2 (Bhagwant Singh) nor of Surinder Singh. Sarita Rani 2025.11.03 16:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 3 of 7 CR No.779 of 2002 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:151036 ii. Lack of authority: Even assuming Rachpal Singh was aForney of Bhag- want Singh, the power of aForney conferred no authority to enter into arbitra(cid:31)on, or to sell land. iii. Improper procedure: The award was passed on the very day of the al- leged agreement, demonstra(cid:31)ng lack of due process. iv. Forgery and coercion: Signatures were allegedly obtained under police pressure when the maFer was reported to the police sta(cid:31)on. v. Effect of subsequent li(cid:16)ga(cid:16)on: Reliance was placed on order dated
Decision
Conclusion : In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that: Sarita Rani 2025.11.03 16:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 6 of 7 CR No.779 of 2002 (O&M) 2025:PHHC:151036 i. There was no valid reference to arbitra(cid:31)on in the eyes of law, as the agreement dated 22.04.1992 was not executed by all the necessary par(cid:31)es. ii. The Arbitrators exceeded their jurisdic(cid:31)on by adjudica(cid:31)ng upon and di- rec(cid:31)ng transfer of ownership of land. iii. The award, being passed on the same day as the reference, is vi(cid:31)ated by procedural irregularity and lack of applica(cid:31)on of mind. iv. The subsequent Division Bench judgment upholding ejectment of Surinder Singh renders the arbitra(cid:31)on award unenforceable and con- trary to law. v. The Courts below erred in overlooking these vital aspects and in mak- ing the award Rule of the Court solely on the ground of non-filing of objec(cid:31)ons. 20. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 07.10.1995 passed by the learned Addi(cid:31)onal Senior Sub-Judge, Nakodar, and 13.12.2001 passed by the learned Addi(cid:31)onal District Judge, Jalandhar, are hereby set aside. The award dated 22.04.1992 is declared invalid and unenforceable in law. The civil revision pe(cid:31)(cid:31)on is, therefore, allowed. No order as to costs. November 03, 2025 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes Yes Sarita Rani 2025.11.03 16:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order Page 7 of 7