Judgment

SIKRI, J. : This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of Dhavan, J., in Civil Revision No. 1209 of 1957. The learned Judge, following Sarju Prasad v. Civil Judge Farrukhabad, ILR (1959) 1 All 354: held that an order of the Court on an objection against an award made under S. 12 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation, of Holdings Act (U. P Act V of 1954) (hereinafter called the Act) was appealable under S. 39 of the Arbitration Act (X of 1940) Mr J. P. Goyal learned counsel for the appellant, urges that this decision of the Allahabad High Court is wrong

(2) In order to appreciate the contentions of Mr. Goyal, it is necessary to give few facts and set out the relevant statutory provisions. During consolidation proceedings in village Dhara-ki-Garhi a question of title arose. The Consolidation Officer, acting, under S. 12 (4) of the Act, referred the question of title to the Civil Judge, Aligarh, who referred the same to the arbitrator, Shri Vikram Singh, who had been appointed under S. 37 of the Act. Section 12 (4) reads as under :

"12(4). Where the objection filed under: sub-s. (l) involves a question of title and such question has not already been determined by a competent Court, the Consolidation Officer shall refer the question for determination to the Civil Judge having jurisdiction who shall thereupon refer it to the Arbitrator."

Section 37 provides :

"37. Arbitration - (1) Where any matter is by or under this Act directed to be referred to an Arbitrator for determination, the Arbitrator will be appointed by the State Government from amongst Civil Judicial Officers or Assistant Collectors of the 1 class of not less than five years standing and in all other respects the matter shall he determined in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940

2. The appointment of an Arbitrator under sub-s. (l) may be made either generally or in respect of any particular case or class of cases or in respect of any specified area or areas."

3. The arbitrator gave his award on May 14, 1956, and submitted the same to the Civil Court for final decision. On May 19, 1956, Charan Singh Dungar Singh, Maharaj Singh and Lajja Ram, appellants before us, filed objections before the Civil Judge, Aligarh. The Civil Judge, on September 8, 1956, modified the award, dated May 14, l956. Babu Lal. Mohar Singh and Ram Piyari filed an appeal before the District Judge against the order of the Civil Judge, dated September 8, 1956. Before the District Judge a preliminary objection was raised that no appeal lay against the order of the Civil Judge. The District Judge overruled the objection. On the merits, the District Judge held that the Civil Judge was not justified, under S 15 of the Arbitration Act, in modifying the award merely because he disagreed with the finding. He, therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Civil Judge modifying the award and the award announced by Shri Vikram Singh was accepted.

4. Charan Singh, Maharaj Singh, Doonger Singh and Lajja Ram filed a petition before the High Court under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. As stated above, Dhavan, T. dismissed the petition on the ground that an appeal lay under S. 39 of the Arbitration Act. This Court granted special leave and now the matter is before us.

5. Mr. Goyal contends that S. 37 of the Act applies the provisions of the Arbitration Act only as far as procedure is concerned and S. 39 of the Arbitration Act which provides for appeals does not apply to arbitrations referred to in S. 37 of the Act. He relies strongly on S. 12 (6) of the Act which provides that the decision of the arbitrator under sub-s. (4) shall be final. We have already set out S. 12 (4). He, however, does not contend that the provisions of S. 15 of the Arbitration Act do not apply because the appellants had apparently applied under S. 15 of the Arbitration Act to the Court to modify the award made by Vikram Singh and they had succeeded in getting an order modifying