Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. : In this appeal by special leave from the decision of the High Court of Madras the appellant challenges the validity of an award made by an arbitrator appointed by the Court in a suit for partition and recovery of possession filed by the appellant of his half share in certain properties upon three grounds. The first ground is that the reference to arbitration was itself invalid because the Court failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of S. 23, sub-s. (1), of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (10 of 1940), in the matter of specifying the time within which the award was to be made. The second ground is that the award was filed in Court by the arbitrator after the expiry of the time subsequently panted by the court for filing the award. The third ground is that the arbitrator erred in allotting to the appellant less than half the share in the properties in suit. In our opinion there is no substance in any of these grounds.

2. It is undoubtedly true that sub-s. (1) of S. 23 requires that an order thereunder referring a dispute to an arbitrator must specify the time within which the award is to be made. What is imperative is the fixation of the time for making th