The consent given by an advocate for a party in an arbitration proceeding is valid and binding on the party, even if the advocate did not have specific authority to give the consent, provided that the advocate acted in good faith and no prejudice was caused to the party.

J. K. MOHANTY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two applications under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil P. C. have been filed for review of the consent orders dated 20-3-79 passed by this Court in civil Revisions Nos. 116 and 117 of 1979. Biswanath Padhy, opposite party, (hereinafter called the 'contractor') entered into an agreement dated 10-2-76 with the President of India through the Deputy Chief Engineer (Constrution ). South Eastern Railway, Waltair (opp. party No. 2) for execution of some works regarding some bridges etc. Dispute having arisen between the parties regarding settlement of claims, opposit party No. 1 filed. Misc. Cases Nos. 258 and 259 of 1978 on 23-8-78 before the Subordinate Judge. Bhubaneswar under sections 8 and 11 of the Arbitration Act and prayed for appointment of a law knowing person as the Arbitrator to enter on the reference to be made to him and to make an award. The Court by order dated 21-11-78 on the application of the Contractor permitted to amend the application and to treat the same as a plaint under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and to implead the Union of India represented by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway as -a party. Thereafter O. S. Nos. 126 and 127 of 1978 were registered and a joint written statement on behalf of all the defendants, namely. Union of India represented by the General Manager, South Eastern Railway, the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction ). South Eastern Railway, Waltair and the District Engineer (D. and d. B. K. ). South Eastern Railway, Waltair, was filed, through their Advocate Shri indrajit Ray. The suits were heard and on 22-12-78 the Court pronounced judgment the ordering portion of which is as follows:--

"the agreement be filed and a reference of the disputes be made to an Arbitrator for adjudication. Parties are directed to submit a panel of names by 22-12-78 for the appointment of an Arbitrator. Parties to bear their own costs of this proceeding. "

On 10-1-79 the defendants filed an application praying for time to submit the panel of names and on 17-1-79 submitted the panel of names which included four officers of the Railway, and two Advocates Shri R. N. Mohanty, government Pleader, Bhubanewar and Shri A Misra, Advocate, Orissa High court, Cuttack. On the very same day Mr. Devananda Misra, Advocate for the contractor, filed a memo and agreed to the appointment of Shri A Misra, advocate (whose name was in the panel of names submitted by the defendants) as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute. Thereafter by order dated 25-1-79 the Court appointed Shri T. M. Varghese, Chief Engineer, South eastern Railway (whose name was in the panel of names submitted by the defendants) as the sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties. Against the order of appointment of Shri T. M. Varghese as the Arbitrator, the contractor filed a petition for review which was rejected. Against the orders passed on 25-1-79, the Contractor filed Civil Revision Nos. 116 and 117 of 1979 before this Court whereto was prayed to set aside the impugned order to the extent of revoking the appointment of Shri T. M. Varghese as the Arbitrator and to appoint Shri A. Misra, Advocate as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. On 23-2-79 these civil revisions came up for admission before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, who issued notice on the question of admission and hearing and grant ed interim stay of the proceedings be fore the arbitrator. It was further direct ed that Mr. Devananda Misra, learned counsel appearing for the Contractor, would serve a copy of the petition on Mr. Indrajit ray, Advocate who appear ed for all the opposite parties in the court below with a further note that the mat ter would be heard finally on Friday. On 2-3-79 Mr. Indrajit Ray, Advocate entered appearance and requested for time to file counter, if any, in the meantime. On 20-3-79 with the consent of the parties, the cases were heard and the following identical orders were passed in both the