JUDGMENT

Malik, J. - This appeal has been filed by one Chaudhri Balwant Singh who had filed an application u/s 33, Arbitration Act, Act 10of 1940, challenging the validity of an award. On 8th March 1941 the parties referred certain disputes to one Kunwar Sardar Singh arbitrator. On 30th April 1941 the arbitrator delivered a copy of the award to each of the parties. On 22nd May 1941 the arbitrator registered this award. On 23rd May 1941 the appellant Ch. Balwant Singh filed an objection u/s 33 of the Act and his grounds were that the award registered on 22nd May 1941 was materially different from the award dated 30th April 1941. He further urged that the award was written out on a stamp paper on 22nd May and was invalid and certain other objections were taken which it is not necessary to set out here. The Court dismissed the application u/s 33 of the Act on 25th September 1941. It is against the order dismissing the application that this appeal has been filed. The learned Counsel for the appellant has frankly admitted that he cannot challenge the findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge on the points that had been raised before him. He wants, however, to raise before us a new point that certain matters not referred to arbitration had been dealt with by the arbitrator and certain other matters which were in the agreement for reference had not been dealt with. The question whether certain matters not referred to arbitration were decided by the arbitrators and why, is purely a question of fact and the point not having been raised in the Court below we do not consider it proper to allow the point to be raised here now. There is, therefore, no force in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs. The respondent has, however, filed a cross-objection and his contention is that the learned Judge of the Court below having dismissed the application u/s 33 of the Act he was bound u/s 17 of the same Act to pronounce judgment according to the award and he, therefore, urges that that judgment should now be pronounced in accordance with the award and a decree shall follow. The learned Counsel for the appellant opposes the cross-objection and his contention is that an application u/s 33 of the Act is entirely a separate proceeding and the Court below having rejected his application the order was entirely in favour of the respondent and he cannot under the Code file any cross-objection.

2. We have carefully considered the various sections-of the Arbitration Act. The Act is divided into various Chapters and Chap. 2 deals with arbitration without intervention of a Court. When an award is pronounced outside Court Section 14, Clause (2) provides that the arbitrators shall at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or if so directed by the Court cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them to be filed in Court. Article 178, Limitation Act, provides six months limitation for an application for the filing of an award made in any matter referred to arbitration without the intervention of a Court and this period commences from the date of the award. When an award has been so filed u/s 14, Clause (2), Arbitration Act, the Court is required to give notice to the parties of the filing of the award, and Article 158, Limitation Act, provides that the parties should file applications to set aside an award within ten days of the receipt of the notice of the filing of the award. Sections 15 and 16, Arbitration Act, then deal with the power of the Court to modify an award or to remit the same for reconsideration. Section 17 of the Act then provides that in case the Court sees no cause to remit the award or to set it aside the Court shall "after the time for making an application to set aside the award has expired or such application having been made, after refusing it, proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award...." Mr. Pathak on behalf of the respond