OMPRAKASH TRIVEDI, J.:- This revision has been referred for decision to Full Bench by order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, dated 17-4-1972 on the ground that there appeared to be a conflict between the two Division Bench decisions of this Court reported in Shri Ram v. Shripat Singh, AIR 1957 All 106 and Rahmetullah v. Vidya Bhusan, AIR 1963 All 602.

2. The facts leading to this reference, so far as material for our present purposes, are as follows:

There was a written agreement dated 9-2-1959 between the District Co-operative Development Federation Ltd., Pratapgarh, petitioner, and Ram Samujh Tewari, opposite party, by which Ram Samujh Tewari was appointed Thekedar for running a brick kiln. One of the terms of the agreement was that in case of dispute between the parties arising out of the agreement the same would be referred for arbitration by the Deputy Commissioner, Pratapgarh. In accordance with this stipulation an application was moved by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner alleging that there was a breach of terms of the agreement by the opposite party and the Deputy Commissioner was urged to decide the same. On this dispute the Deputy Commissioner gave an award dated 7-3-1961 awarding a sum of Rs. 13,667.29 P. to the District Co-operative Development Federation against Ram Samujh Tewari. On 5th July, 1961 the petitioner filed an application purporting to be under Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act (Act X of 1940) before the Civil Judge, Pratapgarh bringing out the facts that in terms of the agreement on award had been made by the Deputy Commissioner on 7-3-1961 for the aforesaid amount, but the opposite party had not made any payment in terms of the award.

The only prayer contained in the application was that a decree may be made in terms of the award. On 3-1-1962 another application was moved on behalf of the District Co-operative Development Federation under Order 13, Rule 1, Civil P. C. praying for summoning of the award along with connected papers from the Deputy Commissioner. The same day the Civil Judge ordered summoning of the award which was produced by the Arbitrator before him on 7-2-1962. This award was signed by Sri Manohar Prasad, Vakil for the petitioner Federation and Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Tripathi, Vakil for opposite party Ram Samujh Tewari on 8-3-1961. On 7-2-1962 the Court issued to the parties notice for filing of the award and invited objections within a month. Only the opposite party filed objections under Section 14 (3) of the Arbitration Act. The objections were dismissed on merits.

The application of the petitioner for making the award rule of the Court was resisted on a number of grounds. One of the grounds was that the application as framed was not maintainable, for although it purported to be one under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act it contained no prayer for summoning the award or for a direction to the arbitrator to file the award as required by Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter called the Act). The Civil Judge took the view that an application under Section 14 (2) of the Act with a prayer for summoning the award must be made within 90 days of the date of service of notice of making of the award and since no such application was made within 90 days the application dated 5-7-1961 as framed was not maintainable and refused to pass a decree in terms of the award. The correctness of this view of the learned Civil Judge is challenged in this revision.

3. The short point which falls for determination in the present case is whether a decree in terms of the award could not be passed on the basis of the application of 5-7-1961 under Section 14 which was moved for the petitioner before the lower Court mainly because it contained no prayer in terms of Section 14 (2) of the Act for a direction by the Court for summoning the award from the arbitrator. A decree on the basis of an award can be made only under Section 17 of the Act. Section 14 (1) of the Act provides th