Judgment

HEGDE, J.:- This appeal by special leave arises from an arbitration proceeding. The appellant, the 1st respondent and one Sukh Lal who died during the pendency of these proceedings referred their disputes to five arbitrators as per the written agreement executed by them on September 9, 1955. Arbitrators made their award on October 11, 1955. They duly served on the parties to the arbitration agreement, notice of making and signing the award. The award was thereafter registered. On November 1, 1955 the appellant filed a suit in the Court of Munsif Hawali Meerut praying that the award in question be made a rule of the Court and decree passed in accordance with the same. It is said that the notices taken in that suit could not be personally served on the defendants as they refused to accept the same. That fact was reported to the Court by the process server as per his report dated 19-11-1955. Thereafter the defendants filed their written statement on February 3, 1956 wherein they challenged the validity of the award on various grounds. They contended that the award was vitiated because of misconduct on the part of the arbitrators inasmuch as the arbitrators decided the disputes referred to them primarily on the basis of their personal knowledge. They also contended that the arbitration agreement was obtained from them by exercise of undue influence. Their further contention was that the subject-matter of the dispute could not under law be referred to arbitration in view of the provisions of U. P. Act 1 of 1951. It was also contended by them that the suit was barred by time.

2. The trial Court accepted the contention of the defendants that the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct. Dealing with the issue of undue influence, it came to the conclusion that the arbitration agreement was not executed by the defendants according to their free will. But it held that the plea of undue influence was not made out. It upheld the contention of the defendants that the subject-matter of the dispute could not have been referred to arbitration in view of the provisions of U. P. Act 1 of 1951.

3. In appeal the learned Civil Judge reversed the decree of the Trial Court. While agreeing with the Trial Court that the arbitrators had used their personal knowledge in deciding the disputes referred to them, that Court held that under the terms of the agreement, it was open to the arbitrators to decide the disputes in question on the basis of their personal knowledge. Dealing with the question of the arbitrators competence to decide the dispute, that Court held that the question whether the dispute came within the scope of U. P. Act 1 of 1951 or not is a question of law and the same could have been referred to arbitration. It went further and held that as the defendants had not taken their objection to the award within the time prescribed, the same could not have been entertained by the trial Court.

4. The High Court in revision differed from the Appellate Court on all the points mentioned above. It came to the conclusion that the arbitration agreement did not specifically empower the arbitrators to decide the disputes referred to them on the basis of their personal knowledge; they having utilized their personal knowledge in deciding the disputes, they were guilty of legal misconduct and consequently the award made by them is vitiated. It also came to the conclusion that the disputes in question could not have been referred to arbitration in view of the provisions of U. P. Act 1 of 1951. If overruled the decision of the Appellate Court that the defendants had not taken their objections to the award within the prescribed time.

5. We may at this stage mention that the contention that the suit was barred by time was not pressed before the Trial Court or in any other Court.

6. There is no basis for the finding of the appellate Court that the objection taken by the defendants to the award was barred by time. As seen earlier, the suit to make the award a r