( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a decree passed in terms of an award. The facts are as follows :

( 2 ) THE parties entered into an agreement to refer the disputes regarding Krishna Oil Factory to the arbitration of two persons Sri Bankey Lal and Sri Hira Lal, vakils of the civil courts, Aligarh. The agreement is dated 12-3-1948 and is Ex. 1. Thereafter Shri Ram and Shripat Singh, two of the parties, entered into an agreement on 27-8-1948 to refer another dispute between them relating to an amount of Rs. 4,000/- to arbitration. Under this agreement they appointed the very same arbitrator. The arbitrators entered upon the reference towards the end of October 1948. Although the arbitrators entered upon the reference very late so far as the first agreement was concerned, none of the parties objected to the arbitrators doing so. The arbitrators gave a joint award on both of the references. This indeed seems to have been the intention of the parties, as it has been contended before us that the arbitrators should not have given a joint award. The date of this award is 15-11-1948.

( 3 ) ON 3-1-1949 Shri Ram appellant filed a suit (No. 6 of 1949) in the court of the Civil Judge aligarh, for supersession of the arbitrators on the ground that they were unduly delaying the giving of the award--it was alleged by Shri Ram that the award had not been given till then--and for the appointment of other arbitrators and for the reference of the dispute to them.

( 4 ) ON 12-2-1949 Shripat Singh, Autar Kishen and others, respondents to the present appeal, filed another suit (No. 19 of 1949) for passing a decree in terms of the award which had already been given by the arbitrators on 15-11-1948. The written statements of the opposite parties in both the suits were. in the same terms as their plaints in the two suits:

( 5 ) THE court framed issues, consolidated the two suits and tried them together. During the course of the trial the award was filed in court by one of the arbitrators on 2-12-1949. The Court below held that the award had been duly made and that there was no flaw in it. Ultimately the count dismissed the appellants suit and decreed the respondents suit and passed a decree in terms of the award on 9-12-1949. Against this decree the plaintiff of suit No. 6 of 1949 has come up in appeal. To the appeal he has attached the decrees passed in both the suits.

( 6 ) A preliminary objection to hearing of this appeal was made on behalf of the respondents. The objection was that the appeal does not lie or is barred by res judicata because an appeal against the judgment and decree in one suit had been filed and no appeal had been filed from the judgment and decree in the other suit. It was urged that if this appeal is decreed conflicting decrees would come into existence and therefore the appeal was hot maintainable.

( 7 ) WE do not think that this preliminary objection has any force. When two suits have been consolidated and tried together and disposed of by one judgment, a party may file an appeal from the judgment and decree in one suit and if he does not file another appeal from the decree in the other suit it cannot be said that his appeal is not either maintainable or that it is barred by res judicata. This is now the settled law, vide Narhari v. Shankar, AIR 1953 SC 419 (A ).

( 8 ) ON the merits learned counsel for the appellant has urged that neither his suit (No. 6 of 1949)nor the respondents suit (No. 19 of 1949) were maintainable as framed as they were in violation of the provisions of the Arbitration Act. We think that this contention is right. Section 32, arbitration Act (hereinafter, called the Act), provides :

"notwithstanding any law for the time being in force, no suit shall lie on any ground whatsoever for a decision upon the existence, effect or validity of an arbitration agreement or award, nor shall any arbitration agreement or award be set aside, amended, modified or in any way affected otherwise than as provided in thi