( 1 ) THE petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 to 7 are tenure-holders in village Sidhyawan in the district of Sultanpur, where consolidation of holdings proceedings are going on. There was a dispute between them over proprietary rights of some plots which was referred to the Civil judge, Sultanpur, for being referred to the arbitrator under the provisions of Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The Arbitrator decided against the petitioners. They filed objections before the learned Civil judge. Sultanpur, and prayed for the award of the arbitrator being set aside. The objections were dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 23-7-58. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed in this court. I am not inclined to issue notice in this case because I am of the opinion that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 39 of the arbitration Act. Section 39 of the Arbitration Act runs as follows :

"39. (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to the court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order an order --- (1) Superseding an arbitration; (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case; (iii) modifying or correcting an award; (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement; (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceeding where there is an arbitration agreement; (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award;. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " it cannot be denied that the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 23-7-58 is an order refusing to set aside an award and if the Arbitration Act applies to the proceedings under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the petitioners would have a right of appeal under Section 39 (1)Civil of the Arbitration Act. As there is no decision of this court on the point I am giving my reasons in details for holding that an appealies in the present case. It would be remembered that before 1940 there was no uniform law dealing with arbitration. There were provisions of Schedule II of the Civil Procedure Code, which dealt with the matters relating to arbitration and there were the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899. Both the second Schedule of tile Civil Procedure Code and the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, were repealed by the present Arbitration Act, 1940. Section 46 of the present Arbitration Act runs as follows :

"46. The provisions of this Act except Sub-section (1) of Section 6 and Sections 7, 12 and 37 shall apply to every arbitration under any other enactment for the time being in force, as if the arbitration were pursuant to an arbitration agreement and as if that other enactment were an arbitration agreement, except in so far as this Act is inconsistent with that other enactment or with any rules made thereunder. "

This section therefore clearly lays down that the provisions of the Arbitration Act except sub-section (i) of Section 6 and sections 7, 12 and 37 shall apply to every arbitration. Section 39 is not one of those sections in respect of which exception has been created by section 46 of the arbitration Act. The arbitration which is the subject-matter of dispute in the present writ petition was made under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and shall be covered by the expression "shall apply to every arbitration under any other enactment for the time being in force". Section 47 of the Arbitration Act runs as follows :"47. Subject to the provisions of Section 46, and save in so far as is otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force the provisions of this Act shall apply to all arbitrations and to all proceedings thereunder. "

(2) Section 47 of the Arbitration Act makes the provisions of the Arbitratio