JUDGMENT

Piggott, J. - This is an appeal from a decree of the Third Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh in an original suit. That decree purports to be passed on the basis of an award and there is no suggestion in any of the pleas in the memorandum of appeal that the decree is in excess of or not in accordance with the award. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondents that no appeal lies, or more strictly speaking, that the appeal cannot be heard on any of the pleas taken in the memorandum of appeal before us.

2. The facts essential to the determination of this point seem to be the following: The suit in the Court below was filed on the 11th of September 1913. There was a single plaintiff and there were four defendants. The Court fixed the 14th of November 1913 for settlement of issues. On that date the Court took note of the fact that three of the defendants, namely, defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (there is a clerical error on this point in the proceedings of the Court below, but the facts are beyond question as above stated) were absent and unrepresented. It passed an order to the effect that the case would proceed ex parte against these defendants. The plaintiff and defendant No. 4 Mustafai Begam appeared before the Court by properly instructed Counsel and an application was then put in on behalf of the plaintiff by a Vakil duly engaged on her behalf, to the effect that negotiations were going on for the arrangement of a compromise and asking that the case be adjourned for that purpose. Counsel representing defendant No. 4 concurred in this application and an order of adjournment was passed. The case came up again on the 20th of December 1913. On that date an application was made which is the important document for consideration in the matter now before us. It is printed on page 7 of the paper-book. The application was presented on behalf of defendant No. 4 by her general attorney. It is to the effect that Mr. W.S. Marris, Collector of Aligarh, has been appointed as arbitrator to determine the questions raised in the suit by agreement between the plaintiff and the aforesaid contesting defendant. The Court is informed that the said arbitrator has consented to act and is "making inquiries", though he has not yet prepared any award. The prayer is that the case may be adjourned till the award is given. This application was endorsed by Mr. M.R. Kadri, Barrister-at-law, appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, and the adjournment asked for was granted accordingly. On subsequent dates six more applications were made, all on behalf of the plaintiff either by Mr. Kadri or by Mr. S. Abdullah, a Pleader engaged on her behalf. These applications were all for further adjournments of the hearing, on the ground that the arbitration proceedings were going on before Mr. Marris and that his award might be expected shortly. On each occasion the Court granted the application for adjournment, fixing a further date on which, the case was to come up for orders. On the 1st of May 1914 the Court decided to communicate direct with the arbitrator and caused a letter to be addressed to him, asking him to state how soon he hoped to be able to complete the arbitration proceedings, at the same time ordering the case to be put up again on the 2nd of June 1914. On that date the Court was informed that the arbitration enquiries had been completed and that an award might be expected very shortly. As a matter of fact an award was made by Mr. Marris and was duly registered on the 24th of June 1914. It is to be observed, though the fact is not essential, that the absent defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had in the meantime petitioned Mr. Marris, expressing their agreement that his award should determine the litigation. On the 11th of July 1914 defendant No. 4 asked that a copy of this award might be filed and made a judgment of the Court. Upon this objection was taken by the plaintiff on a variety of grounds, and an order was passed, which is not on the