Award filed in Court by arbitrators.

The question that arises for determination in this revision petition is whether in a petition filed by the arbitrators under section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act (X of 1940) for filing an award, persons who were eo nomine, not parties to either the agreement of reference or to the award could be added as necessary parties under Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code. On a reference made by three brothers, Subbaratham Chettiar, Vasudevan Chettiar and Krishnaswami Chettiar to two arbitrators regarding the partition of their family properties the arbitrators gave an award. The award was filed by the arbitrators under section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act in O.P. No. 90 of 1947 on the file of the Subordinate Court of Trichinopoly. Subbaratham Chettiar remained ex parte in the arbitration proceedings. He became insolvent since the filing of O.P. No. 90 of 1947 and the Official Receiver of Trichinopoly was brought on record as representing his estate. Subbaratham Chettiar filed O.P. No. 124 of 1947 in the same Court for setting aside the award on certain grounds. O.S. No. 3 of 1949 was filed on behalf of the minor sons of Subbaratham Chettiar, who are the petitioners before me, for partition of the joint family properties, wherein they attacked Subbaratham Chettiar’s management of the family properties and also questioned the arbitration and the award on several grounds, one of which was, that their father had no authority to bind the sons by reference to arbitration and also on the ground that all the family members were not parties to the reference. Vasudevan Chettiar applied in I.A. No. 10 of 1949 in O.P. No. 90 of 1947 for adding the petitioners as parties to the said O.P. No. 90 of 1947. He also presented a similar application I.A. No. 44 of 1949 for adding them as parties as well in O.P. No. 124 of 1947. Both the said interlocutory applications were made under Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code and section 41 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed I.A. No. 44 of 1949 observing that the application being one for setting aside the award the question whether the award is or is not binding on the sons of Subbaratham Chettiar was beyond the scope of the said application and whatever may be said as to the propriety of being made parties to an application to have the award made a decree of Court, they are, however, not necessary parties to O. P. No. 124 of 1947, which was a petition filed by their father for setting aside the award. I.A. No. 10 of 1949 was allowed and the learned Subordinate Judge made them parties stating that in view of the fact that the father was adjudicated insolvent and his sons had filed a partition suit it might be that he was not competent to effectually represent them in the petition and that it was fit and proper that they should be impleaded as parties to the petition so that whatever objections they might have to the passing of a decree on the award might be once for all heard and decided. No revision has been filed against the order in I.A. No. 44 of 1949. The petitioners have presented this revision petition against the order making them parties in I.A. No. 10 of 1949.

Two contentions were raised on behalf of the petitioners, namely, that it was not open to a Court on a petition filed under section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act to apply the provisions of Order 1, rule 10, Civil Procedure Code and make persons parties to the petition even though they were not parties to the reference and secondly that in any event the petitioners are not necessary parties. Section 41 of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940 is as follows:

“Subject to the provisions of this Act and of rules made thereunder

(a) the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) shall apply to all proceedings before the Court, and to all appeals, under this Act, and

(b) the Court shall have, for the purpose of, and in relation to, arbitration proceedings the same power of making o