Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.

1. The parties to these cases before us are brothers. By an agreement, dated 31st October, 1926, the parties agreed to have their disputes relating to partition settled by three specified arbitrators. During the course of the arbitration proceedings one of the arbitrators died. One of the brothers filed O.S. No. 8 of 1929 on 22nd March, 1929, against his brother. The 1st defendant in O.S. No. 8 of 1929 applied under para. 18 of the second Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure to have the suit stayed. The Court held that the arbitration could go on with a fresh arbitrator that may be appointed by the Court. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 8 of 1929 preferred an appeal against that order, and the learned District Judge set aside that order, holding that the arbitration agreed to between the parties could not go on, as one of the arbitrators was dead, and as there was no provision in the agreement regarding the appointment of a substitute in the place of the arbitrator who is dead. Against the decision of the learned District Judge directing the suit to proceed, the 1st defendant has preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 1034 of 1930.

2. The 1st defendant in