Judgement

Appeal by special leave from a judgment of the officiating Chief Commissioner of Ajmer-Merwara (May 23, 1912).

The judgment appealed from set aside an award in proceedings in which the matters in difference in a suit had been referred to arbitration by the trial judge, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sched. II., s. 1. The ground of the decision was that the application for the order of reference was not signed by the guardian ad litem of one of the parties who was a minor. It appeared that all the parties, including the minor by his guardian ad litem, had signed an agreement to refer which was produced to the judge upon the hearing of the application, and that all the parties, including the guardian, had been present in Court upon the application. The facts in connection with the proceedings are fully stated in the judgment of their Lordships.

1915. Oct. 19. Dube, for the appellants. Sect. 1 of Sched. II. of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not require that the parties should sign an application under that section. It is only necessary that all the parties should agree. All the requirements of the section were satisfied in the present case. The

05 Law. Rep. 43 Ind. App. 1 ( 1915- 1916)

Thakur Umed Singh V. Sobhag Mal Dhadha 106

decree of the trial judge giving effect to the award was, under Sched. II., s. 16, of the Code, final and not subject to appeal or revision Ghulam Jilani v. Muhammad Hussan (( 1901) L. R. 29 Ind. Ap. 51.); Hansraj v. Sundar Lal. (( 1908) L. R. 35 Ind. Ap. 88, at p. 97.) In any case there was no ground entitling the officiating Chief Commissioner, under s. 114 and Order xlvii., r. 1, of the Code, to review the judgment of the Chief Commissioner.

The respondents did not appear.

Nov. 2. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

VISCOUNT HALDANE. In this appeal the question is whether the officiating Chief Commissioner of Ajmer-Merwara has properly set aside the award in certain arbitration proceedings. The respondents had brought a suit to recover from the appellants Rs. 88,320 alleged to be due under a mortgage. The appellant first on the record is the father of the second appellant, who was at the time of the proceedings a minor. The trial judge appointed one Bhur Singh guardian ad litem of this minor appellant. Before the trial came on all the parties entered into an agreement to refer the questions in dispute to two arbitrators and, in the event of these differing, to an umpire. The agreement was signed by the appellants and respondents each with his own hand, excepting in the case of the minor appellant, on whose behalf it was signed by the guardian ad litem. An application to the Court for an order of reference was filed. The parties appeared before the trial judge and produced the agreement. The guardian ad litem was present in Court and was a party to the application. The trial judge thereupon made an order of reference. The arbitrators differed, and the parties then concurred in an application to refer the dispute to the umpire, and an order was made accordingly. The umpire made an award allowing the respondents claim to the extent of Rs. 17,510 only. This award was filed in Court. The respondents, being dissatisfied with it applied to the trial judge under the provisions of s. 15 of the Second Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the award. The trial judge refused the application. He held that all the parties to the suit, including the guardian ad litem, had been consenting parties to the application, and further that there was no ground for the objections made on the merits to the award. The order was made under s. 16 of the Second Schedule to the Code already referred to. This section provides that " (1.) Where the Court sees no cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration in manner aforesaid, and no application has been made to set aside the award, or the Court has refused such application, the