( 1 ) ARGUMENTS in this appeal were first heard in November, 1963, when it was adjourned so as to enable the parties to come to some amicable settlement. The respondents learned counsel had, h nay be pointed cut, taken strong objection to the competency of the appeal and had also urged that the decisions Of the Court s below having done substantial justice between the parties this Court should dedine interfeience on revision as well. After some time, I was informed that there was little prospect of an agreed solution. The; appeal, was ,thus directed to be set down for re-hearing. It is in these circumstances that this appeal has now been fully heard. The respondent s counsel his, however, not appeared on this occasion and, therefore, has not addressed any arguments despite the case being on the boaid.

( 2 ) TURNING to the facts, Jai Gopal (respondent in this Court, secured a decree-against Kanwar Gopal for the recovery of Rs. 1,200. 00 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from 19th December, 1957 till payment. This decree was obtained in suit No. 454 of l956. It may be pointed out that this was a decree passed on an arbitration award. It was also provided therein t