P L, D 1969 Dacca 670 (PLP)

The main objection was raised against the award by the petitioner before me as to the fact that the arbitrator did not consider the question of limitation and the extinguishment of the right of the plaintiff by passage of time. This was a reference to arbitration in a suit and is covered by section 21 of the Arbitration Act. The terms of reference are as follows: "Both parties file a petition and pray for adjournment of hearing of the suit enabling them to compromise the dispute Defts. 2 and 3 also appear by a wokalutnama subsequently this day and thereafter all parties file a joint petition praying for appointing Mr. S. K. Khairuddin, Chairman of Patuatuly Union Council as an Arbitrator and for referring the suit to me for determination and for submission of award. Heard the learned lawyers of both sides. Prayer is allowed. Let the suit be referred to the Chairman and he be appointed Arbitrator as desired by the parties. Write to the Arbitrator accordingly. To. 16‑4‑62 for submission of award. Parties are directed to produce all necessary papers before the arbitrator within 7 days. In the circumstances, the suit is taken of from the peremptory list." Section 3 of the Arbitration Act gives the implied conditions of arbitration agreements as set out in the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act. The 7th Condition in the First Schedule is to the following effect: "The award shall be final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively." When the parties have entered into an agreement for arbitration, they are bound to abide by the award whether the arbitration agreement was in a contract between the parties or whether it arose in the course of the suit. The only remedy open to the aggrieved party is under section 30 which reads follows: "

30. An award shall not be set aside except on one or more of the following grounds, namely:‑‑ (a) that an arbitrator or umpire has misconducted himself or the proceedings; (b) that an award has been made after the issue of an order by the Court superseding the arbitration or after arbitration proceedings have become invalid under section 35; (c) that an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid. " From the above it is clear that the award in this case can be set aside only on the ground of misconduct of the Arbitrator. Non consideration of the rights of the parties based on the ground of limitation is not a ground of misconduct of Arbitrator The parties could have obtained a decision on the point from the Court itself. The Arbitrator is not the Court. The parties having agreed to refer the dispute to arbitration took the matter outside the ambit of legal rights. Their agreement to refer the dispute to an arbitrator implies a consent to have the disputes settled without reference to strict legal provisions. The award in this case is a very fair one and the defendant ought to be satisfied that he was given at least a portion of the disputed property which was clearly found to be a part of the plaintiffs plots. I find no substance in this rule and therefore discharge the same without any order as to costs. K. B. A. Rule discharged.