( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision has been referred to a Bench by a learned Single Judge. The order of the learned Single Judge indicates that he has made the reference to a larger Bench for the disposal of the revision, even though he has formulated three points which, in his view, merited consideration for the purposes of the determination of the revision on the merits.

( 2 ) THE three questions which the learned Single judge formulated were, to quote his words:-"

1. Whether in a case, where a party files the award along with his application, it can make an application under Section 17 of Arbitration Act for making the award a rule of the Court, without making a prayer for the filing of the award as required by Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act?

2. Whether Article 178 of the Limitation Act applies to? such a case?

( 3 ) IF it does, whether in the present case the flung of the petition in the Court of the Munsif amounted to prosecuting a remedy with due diligence under Section 14 ot the Indian Limitation act and the period should have been condoned under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act?" 3. In order to appreciate the points which the learned Single Judge stated, it is necessary to know a few facts. On the 15th of August 1954 there was an arbitration agreement between the parties of this revision. That arbi-tration agreement also provided that in the event of there being a difference between the arbitrators appointed the difference was to be referred to an umpire, who was to be appointed, for his decision. On the 17th of January 1955 an award was made and in that award the applicant was to get a sum of Rs. 4476/8/ -. This award however, was not filed by the arbitrators in the Court, nor did any or the parties to the arbitration agreement of the award make an application to the Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 (2) of the arbitration Act.

( 4 ) ON the 3rd of February 1955 Haji Rahmatullah made an application to the Court of the munsif, Nainital along with a copy of the award which was made on the 17th of January 1955, referred to above, with a prayer that we award be made the rule of the Court and that a decree for a sum of Rs. 4476/8/- be made along with costs of the application. This application the revisionist purported to make under the provisions of Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act for just before the recitals in the application, what was recorded on the application was this:

"application under Section 14 of Indian Arbitration Act".

Prima facie this was not correct for Section 14 did not provide for granting the relief which was sought by this application. The appropriate section for the relief which was sought apparently was provided for by Section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act. Section 17 of the Arbitration Act is in these words:"where the Court sees no cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for consideration or to set aside the award, the Court shall, after the time for making an application to set aside the award has expired, or such application having been made, after refus-ing it, proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award and upon the judgment so pronounced a decree snail follow and no appeal shall lie from such decree except on the ground that it is in excess of, or not otherwise in accordance with, the award. "

( 5 ) THE first question that had to be determined in this case was whether the award which was before the Court could be made the rule of Court under the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian arbitration Act, when the award had not come before the Court as a result of any specific proceedings being taken under the provisions of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act. This question was pointedly raised before the learned single Judge and this question has also been pointedly raised before ,us. Section 14 of the Arbitration Act provides for the methods by which an award can come on the record of the Court as a preliminary step to