( 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