This case finds me confronted with an unsolved riddle, in which the legislature could have helped much, but has not. The same relates to the boundaries bet­ween Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for short the Act. This problematical question has arisen out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs to declare a Sulenama and the award based on it as forged and invalid. According to the plaintiffs though they had appointed proforma defendant No. 15 as Arbitrator on 15.6.68 and the arbitrator had proceeded with the matter, efforts were made by the villagers to mediate and settle the dispute. This mediation took place on 11.8.68 when certain terms were agreed upon and noted in an exercise book. These terms were subsequently manipulated and a forged Sulenama was taken before proforma defendant No. 15, who on the basis of the same, made an award on 15.10.68 about which they knew on 14.4.69 on obtaining a copy of the registered award. This led the plaintiffs to pray for declara­tion of the award as well as of the aforesaid Sulenama as forged and invalid. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit, but on appeal the same has been dismissed on the ground that the suit was premat