RANDHIR SINGH, J.:- This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Civil Judge of Gonda dismissing an application under S.14 of the Indian Arbitration Act which was treated as a suit, for the filing of an award and for a decree on the basis of the award.

2. The plaintiffs appellants and the defendant are own brothers, being the sons of Patan Din. They formed a joint Hindu family and were possessed of business and movable and immovable properties. Disputes arose amongst the brothers and ultimately it was agreed that the properties be partitioned. An agreement was executed on the 8th October, 1946, by means of which the parties appointed six arbitrators, including a sarpanch, for the partitioning of the properties and for settling the dispute.

The arbitrators then entered upon their duty and after examining the parties and their evidence gave an award on 13-1-1947. The award was registered. On 14-7-1947, an application was made by tire plaintiffs appellants purporting to be one under S.14 of the Arbitration Act, though it was wrongly described as an application under S.51. of the Act, praying that the arbitrators be directed to file the award and a decree be passed on the basis of the award.

Notices were then issued to the respondent and the arbitrators; and Bechchu Lai the sarpanch filed the award in Court along with the registered agreement on 25-8-1947. Objections were, however, raised on behalf of the respondent challenging the validity of the award on various grounds. It was contended that certain properties had been left out and had not been partitioned, that two of the panches- Moti Sonar and Kodai Halwai, were not present on all the sittings of the panches and did not join in the award, that Ganesh Dutt Misir - one of the panches, refused to act as arbitrator, that the panches showed partiality to the applicant and did not divide the property properly and that no notice of the award was given to the respondent. It was also alleged that the application was barred by time.

3. The learned Civil Judge framed in all 13 issues which covered the various objections raised on behalf of the respondent and finally came to the conclusion that the award had not been proved and was bad on account of judicial misconduct and partiality of the arbitrators. The application made by the plaintiffs appellants, which was treated as a suit, was finally dismissed on the 22nd January, 1948. The plaintiffs have now come up in appeal.

4. It is not disputed that the parties had entered into an agreement on 8-10-1946, by means of which six arbitrators, including Bachchu Lal Sarpanch, were appointed for settling the disputes and for the partitioning of the property of the parties. The main grounds of contention on behalf of the defendant, however, were that the theka of village Beli and a sum of Rs.5,000/- deposited with Lakshmi Saraf had not been partitioned by the panches.

It has also been contended in appeal that the award had not been proved and that the application was barred by time. The other points raised in the Court below have not been seriously pressed in appeal.

4a. The first point, therefore, which arises for determination is whether the award had been proved. The original award, which is a registered document and is properly stamped, was filed by the sarpanch in Court on 25-8-1947.

5. The plaintiffs appellants had examined two of the panches including the sarpanch, but unfortunately no question was put to either of them with regard to the execution of the award. The point that no award had been made was not specifically taken in the written statement filed by the respondent. The plaintiffs had definitely stated in paragraph 3 of their application "that the panches and the sarpanch made the necessary and proper inquiries and gave the award on 13-1-1947." The defendant respondent in his written statement denied the allegations in paragraph 3 in the following words:

"Paragraph 3 is not admitted subject to additional pleas."

In paragr