व्हिच ऑफ द फॉलोइंग वेयर आर कॉमन प्रेम 16 एंड 21
Answers
Answer:
The facts so far as relevant for purposes of the point arising in this case are that during the course of execution proceedings for the execution of a money decree, the judgment-debtor filed an application under Order 21, Rule 2, for according adjustment of decree to the extent of Rs. 3,400/- which sum, it was maintained by the judgment-debtor, had been paid by him to the decree-holder. Before the executing Court, both the parties agreed that the dispute about the payment of Rs. 3,400/- should be decided by Shri Daulat Ram Tandon, Advocate, acting as the sole arbitrator. This dispute was referred to the sole arbitrator through the intervention of the Court on 21st March, 1960.
On 25th August, 1960, before the award had been made, the judgment-debtor applied to the executing Court for the supersession of the reference alleging that the dispute was not referable to arbitrator during the course of the execution proceedings and consequently the proceedings before the arbitrator were void. Misconduct on the part of the arbitrator was also alleged. The executing Court framed the following issues:
Step-by-step explanation: