The main legal point established is that the failure to give notice as required by the Arbitration Act constitutes a material irregularity vitiating the decree.

Horwill, J.

1. The matter in dispute in O.S. No. 182 of 1939 on the file of the District Munsiff of Nandalur was referred to five arbitrators. They were given time for the filing of the award and that time was extended frequently, until at last, on the 26th April, 1941, the award was filed by the fifth arbitrator and signed by three other arbitrators. That was the last day on which the Court sat before the summer vacation. The Judge ordered the suit to be called again on the 11th June, 1941, two days after the reopening of the Court. On that day, as no petition had been filed to set aside the award, the suit was decreed in terras of the award. This revision petition has been filed by the defendants, complaining that the provisions of the Arbitration Act were not complied with, in that they were given no notice either by the arbitrators or by the Court, that they had no opportunity to file objections, and that the decree is therefore a nullity.

2. The plaintiff raises a preliminary objection that no revision lies, relying on Ghulam jilani v. Mahammad Hassan (1901) 12 M.L.J. 77 : L.R. 29 IndAp 51 : I.L.R. 29 Cal. 167 (P.C.). That was a case where an objection to the award was taken in appeal on the ground that it should have been raised in a proper application before the trial Court. It was held that no appeal lay and that the appeal ought not to have been converted into a revision petition, because if the matter could not be raised in appeal, then a fortiori the matter could not be raised in revision, when the parties had another remedy by way of filing objections in. the trial Court. That decision was followed in Batcha Sait v. Abdul Gunny (1913)25MLJ507 , but the learned Judges there distinguished Velu Pillai v. Appasami Pandaram (1910) 21 M.L.J. 444 : (1911) 1 M.W.N. 141 which dealt with a case similar to that under consideration here and said that Velu Pillai v. Appasami Pandaram (1910) 21 M.L.J. 444 : (1911) 1 M.W.N. 141 did not deal with an impeachment of an award, but was a case where the express provisions of paragraph 16 of schedule II of the Civil Procedure Code, had been contravened. That is precisely what the petitioners say here. It is not that they wish to raise a point which they ought to have raised in the lower Court; but they desire to be given an opportunity in the lower Court of filing their objections. I hold that a revision petition does lie.

3. Section 14 of the Arbitration Act makes it clear that notice in writing must be given by the arbitrators to the parties that they have passed their award. They must then, at the request of either party or of their own accord, file the award into Court. It is then the duty of the Court to give notice to the parties of the fact that the award has been filed. Section 42 lays down the procedure to be adopted in giving notice by the arbitrator and in all notices other than through Court. Section 14 does not deal with arbitration in suits, but Section 25, which is in Chap. IV, which deals with arbitration in suits, says:

The provisions of the other chapters shall, so far as they can be made applicable, apply to arbitrations under this chapter.

4. There is clearly no difficulty in arbitrations in suits in notice being given by the arbitrators to the parties that an award has been made or in the Courts giving notice to the parties that the award has been filed into Court. The question is whether the failure to give notice as required by the Act is a material irregularity which vitiates the decree. Three cases have been cited before me, one of which is a Madras case, namely, Rangaswami v. Muthusami I.L.R.(1887) Mad. 144 where it was held that the omission was a material irregularity. In Chatarbuj Das v. Ganeshram I.L.R.(1898) All. 474 which followed Rangaswami v. Muthusami I.L.R.(1887) Mad. 144 it was pointed out that although it was probably true (as in this case) that the parties did know that the award had been filed, yet the provisions with regard to notice were mand