( 1 ) THE petitioner asks for a Writ in the nature of mandamus on the Registrar of this Court directing him "to recall, cancel and withdraw the filing of the pretended award dated April 1, 1963 as a judgment in suit No. 1045 of 1947 as part of the record of this Court. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the said suit and the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the defendants. The dispute between the brothers and sister relate to the estate left by their father Srish Chandra Paul who died intestate in 1946 leaving considerable properties. Apart from the plaintiff who is the youngest daughter and is still unmarried, Sris had other daughters who are married and one of whom has died since. The widow of Srish, Pramila Sundari Dasi died on January 13, 1958 after having instituted the above suit and after executing a Will whereby she left her entire estate to the plaintiff her youngest daughter and the respondent No. 3 her youngest son, to the total exclusion of her two other sons and the other daughters. The suit instituted by Pramila Sundari was a suit for cancellation of a deed of gift executed by her in favour of her three sons in respect of one item of immoveable property situate in Calcutta of which she was the exclusive owner, and for partition of the estate left by her deceased husband. The agreement between Pramila Sundari and her three sons which purports to record the partition of the bulk of the estate left by Srish has also been chal-lenged in the said suit. During the pendency of the suit Pramila Sundari died leaving a Will as indicated before and by an order of this Court her youngest daughter Arati was transferred from the category of defendant to be the sole plaintiff in place and stead of the deceased mother. She also propounded her mother's Will which was contested by her two brothers Balai and Kanai. Thereupon the testamentary proceedings became a contested cause and was marked and numbered Testamentary Suit No. 12 of 1962. Both the Testamentary Suit and the other suit came up before me for trial. What happened thereafter will appear from the judgment delivered by me on April 1, 1963 hereunder set out. "the suit and the testamentary proceedings initiated by the substituted plaintiff to prove the Will of Promila came up for trial, the testamentary proceeding having been placed first. The Testamentary proceedings was called on first and a number of witnesses were examined on behalf of the propounder. On January 4, 1963, the parties represented by their counsel asked me to dispose of the disputes in these two proceedings as I considered proper. No further evidence was tendered in the above two proceedings. What I was asked to do will appear from the minutes recorded and set out hereunder:"it is recorded that all the parties consent to this testamentary suit as well as the partition suit being suit No. 1045 of 1957 and all the disputes involyed in these two matters be settled and referred to the sole arbitration of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mullick and the parties agreed to abide by any decision that will be given and no evidence need be taken except as to what His Lordship might desire and the evidence need not be recorded in any formal manner. Parties agree that His Lordship would have all the summary power including the power to divide and partition the properties and to make such decrees as his Lordship thinks fit and proper and for the purpose of partition, if necessary, to engage or appoint surveyors and commissioners as His Lordship thinks best. It is recorded that all the parties have referred this matter to the Learned Judge in what is known as Extra Cursum Curiae jurisdiction of this Court. It is further recorded that all parties agree that they will not prefer any appeal from or against the decree or order that may be passed by his Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mullick. "i have accepted it in terms of the prayer of the parties protracted litigation amongst suck near relations is extremely un