S.N. PATHAK, J.:- This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.4.98 passed by Sub Judge Saharsa, in Misc. case No. 17/97 dismissing the claim of the plaintiff-appellants seeking amendment of the award dated 26.2.97 who was put to execution in case no. 2/97.

2. Certain facts will be apt to be stated, precisely in order to bring the book of contention between the parties into Sharp focus. The defendant-respondent, Sudhir Kumar Singh, was a tenant under Satya Narain Prasad Gupta, the plaintiff-appeal Dulari Devi in a house situated within the jurisdiction of the local Municipality having holding no. 244 over old Khata no. 190, on keshra no. 4203, new khata no. 392, now khesra no. 731 (kha and ga). Sudhir Kumar Singh was running a medical shop named as Popular Medical Hall in this house. There was an alleged agreement between Satya Narain Prasad Gupta and Sudhir Kumar Singh to sell the aforesaid house for Rs. 2 lakhs. Satya Narain Prasad Gupta has received Rs. 1,40,500/-. Rest of the consideration money was to be paid by Sudhir Kumar Singh and then it was agreed that on payment of this amount both the husband and wife shall execute a deed of registration over the said house. Thereafter, when Satya Narain Prasad Gupta and his wife failed to execute the deed as per the agreement, the panches intervened and rendered an award. The Staya Narain Prasad Gupta filed the suit in the Court below to set aside the award on legal and factual grounds when this prayer of Satya Narain Prasad Gupta was rejected, they filed this appeal before this Court.

3. The award rendered by the so called panches had been challenged on various grounds. Firstly, the ground on which this award was assailed was that the agreement entered into between Satya Narain Prasad Gupta and Sudhir Kumar Singh was not joined by his wife, Ram Dulari Devi. It was next assailed on the ground that the award does not refer to odd n umber of Panches as enjoined by Section 10 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. Moreover, initially the concerned award referred to six panches, but thereafter it referees to 16 panches, our of which only 13 panches signed on the award. Signature of Satya Narain Prasad Gupta was obtained on page 4 of the award under coercion and without his voluntary participation in the alleged proceeding. The panches did not appoint an umpire (President). On the aforesaid legal grounds, the award, in question, was challenged. The lower court rejected all these objections and held that the objections were also time barred in the court below, and, accordingly, dismissed the misc. case, against which this appeal has been preferred.

4. In the first place, I am to see whether the arbitration agreement itself was valid without the same being joined by the wife of Satya Narain Prasad Gupta. Recitals of the award itself show that both Satya Narain Prasad Gupta and his wife Ram Dulari Devi had agreed to sell the house, in question, under the tenancy of Sudhir Kumar Singh. This recital finds mention in paragraph 2 of the reference (Ext. B). Admittedly, the house, in question, stands in the name of Ram Dulari Devi. It was the contention of the respondents that this house was purchased by Satya Narain Prasad Gupta in the name of his wife and so, it was his property. So, he was required to enter into the agreement of reference. But the recital which I have referred to above indicates that both the husband and wife had to execute the sale deed. Moreover, admittedly when the house, in question, stood in the name of wife of Satya Narain Prasad Gupta, the probability of the alleged agreement for sale of the house must be that the sale deed would be executed both by Stay a Narain Prasad Gupta and his wife. In such a circumstance, non-joining of wife of Satya Narain Prasad Gupta in the agreement of reference to arbitration, of course, rendered it invalid and moreover this agreement of reference appeared to be doubtful. This agreement (Ext.B) refers to appointment o