Phillips, J.

1. The parties in this case referred their disputes to the arbitration of three named arbitrators. One of them, the plaintiff, then applied to the Court under para. 17 (1) of Scheduel 11 to the Civil Procedure Code to have the agreement filed in Court. This has been done and under para. 4 an order of reference has been made, but the Court has added a further direction that in case of disagreement among the arbitrators the opinion of the majority should prevail. The appellants contend that such an order is illegal because it is inconsistent with the agreement to refer to arbitration. It is well settled that when a reference is made to two or more arbitrators the award is not valid unless it is concurred in by them all. This was laid down in United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Assurance Association v. Houston and Co. (1896) 1 Q B 567 and was assumed in Cameron v. Cuddy (1914) A C 651. It is also laid down in Baboo Surubjeet Narain Singh v. Baboo Gouree Pershad Narain, Singh (1867) 7 W R 269, In the matter of Junglee Ram v. Ram Heet Sahoy (1873) 19 W R 47 and Nem Roy v. Bharut Roy and Ors. (1874) 22 W R 139. It is true that in these cases one or more of the arbitrators