RSA No.1533 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No. 4158-C of 2005 and RSA No. 1533 of 2005 Date of Decision: January 08 , 2010 Hem Raj ...... Appellant Versus Suraj Bhan and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.A.M.Punchhi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.S.Chahal, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5 and 8. Respondents No.6,7, 11 and 12 already ex parte. Names of respondents No. 8 to 10 already deleted vide order dated 9.3.2009. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. CM No. 4158-C of 2005 For the reasons recorded, delay of 56 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. CM stands disposed of. RSA No. 1533 of 2005 This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for possession, permanent RSA No.1533 of 2005 2 injunction and mandatory injunction in respect of house No. 5105 at Bathinda. Both the courts below found that the appellant and the respondents who are real brothers had executed a document whereby they had nominated their brother-in-law (sister's husband) to decide the dispute between them and had undertaken to accept the decision given in this regard. Both the courts have also found that the said decision was duly given and was specifically accepted by both the brothers and was signed by them in token of such acceptance. In these circumstances both the courts held that the present suit was an attempt by the appellant to resile from this arrangement. The following questions have been proposed:- i) When a document is totally vague and does not contain any details of the properties of the parties which are required to be partitioned, whether any decision taken by the said mediator can be binding on any of the parties? ii) Whether plaintiff/appellant could maintain the suit for possession on the basis of his title, ignoring the alleged decision of the mediator, DW6 and whether the suit can be said to be not maintainable by treating Ex.DW-3/2 to be an award of the Arbitrator more particularly when the same has not been made Rule of the Court? iii) Whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made above, the judgments and decree of the courts below are sustainable in the eyes of law? As regards question No. (i) a perusal of the document clearly shows that all the three persons viz. the two brothers and the brother-in-law clearly understood and knew what the dispute was, the property covered by it and the terms of the arrangement. As regards question No. (ii) both the courts have relied upon a catena of authorities to hold that a person who has RSA No.1533 of 2005 3 accepted an award cannot thereafter challenge it on the ground that it has not been made Rule of the Court. Question No. (iii) is a general question discovered by questions No. (i) and (ii). Consequently holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE January 08 , 2010 sunita