( 1 ) THIS is a revision by Srimati Balika Devi and her son Ramesh Chandra arising out of proceedings instituted by Kedar Nath Puri under Section 8, Arbitration Act.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the opposite party has raised a preliminary objection that no revision lies under the provisions of Section 115, Civil P. C. His contention is that the Arbitration Act makes provision for appeals only under Section 39 of the Act, and there being no provision for a revision, it should be inferred that the Legislature intended to exclude the operation of Section 115 to orders passed under the Arbitration Act. We think that this contention is concluded I against the opposite party by decisions of this Court which are binding on us: mt. Mariam v. Mt. Amina, AIR 1937 All 65 (FB) (A); charan Das v. Gur Saran Das Kapur, AIR 1945 All 146 (B ).

( 3 ) THE facts which culminated in the filing of this revision may now be briefly stated: --

( 4 ) ONE Badri Nath Kochar was carrying on contract business in Kanpur. It is no longer disputed that in 1943 Badri Nath Kochar and Kedar Nath Puri, a resident of Lucknow, became partners in the contract business in Kanpur, Both of them executed a partnership deed on 18-7-1943 (vide ex. 1 ). Initially, this partnership was confined to the business of the supply of bricks to a firm known as Messrs. Shapurji Palanji and Co. , but it was provided in Clause 6 of the partnership deed that if any other work was undertaken in partnership, the same terms would continue to bind the two partners. Under this agreement the two partners had equal shares in the profits and loss of the business and both of them were to invest money in the business. The supervision of the contract work and the employment and discharge of servants were entrusted to Badri Nath Kochar. The main clause with which we are concerned is Clause 12 of the agreement. This clause provided for the settlement of disputes by arbitration. It was agreed between the two partners that if any disputes were to arise concerning the partnership business they would be referred to an arbitrator whose decision will be binding on the two partners. It appears that the partnership business was carried on in Kanpur after the execution of the aforesaid partnership deed.

( 5 ) ON 1-7-1950, Badri Nath Kochar died leaving behind him his wife and minor son, the two applicants before us. Shortly after, Kedar Nath Puri (opposite party) went to Kanpur on a condolence visit, as the late Badri Nath Kochar was his maternal uncle. During his stay in kanpur, Kedar Nath Puri broached the question about settlement of his claims against Badri nath Kochar. Shrimati Balika Devi pleaded ignorance of the transactions between her husband and Kedar Nath puri, but on the intervention of some relations she agreed to refer all the disputes relating to claims put forward by Kedar Nath Puri to the arbitration of one Sri Vaish of Kanpur; and for that purpose Kedar Nath Puri and Shrimati Balika Devi executed a deed a reference on 16-11-1950. Shrimati Balika Devi signed the deed both in her personal capacity and as the natural guardian of her minor son. The agreement specified the disputes between the parties. One of the disputes related to the rendition of accounts in respect of four partnership contracts detailed in the agreement. The second dispute was in respect of two sums, viz. Rs. 14,000/-and rs. 1,500/- which were alleged to have been advanced by Kedar Nath Puri to Badri Nath Kochar for investment in the partnership business. And the third item of dispute was the claim of Kedar nath Puri to recover Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 17,000/- paid by Kedar Nath Puri to certain persons under directions from Badri Nath Kochar in the year 1947.

( 6 ) SRI Vaish entered on the reference and proceedings before him continued for a long time. He. was allowed extension from time to time by the Court but ultimately he refused to give an award. Thereupon Kedar Nath Puri gave a notice to Shrimati Balika