ORDER

S.N. Singh, J. - This is a Defendant's appeal in a suit filed for declaration that a decree passed by the Panchayat Adalat on 29-6-64 against the Plaintiff was without jurisdiction and that the Panchayat Adalat had no jurisdiction to refer this matter to arbitrator and that the decision based on the award was invalid because of several grounds mentioned in the plaint. It was further alleged that as soon as the award was sent to the Panchayat Adalat the Panchayat Adalat without giving any opportunity to object the award passed a decree thereon. It was also alleged that as a matter of fact the Plaintiff had never referred any such matter to arbitration.

2. This suit was contested by the defendent Respondent on the ground that the Plaintiff had no cause of action to bring the present suit, that no fraud was practised before the Nyaya Panchayat. It was asserted that the Plaintiff did apply for the reference of the dispute to the arbitrator and he signed the application. It was said that after the decree passed by the Nyay Panchayat a revision was filed, which was dismissed and that the suit was not maintainable and was not cognizable by the civil court.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed necessary issues. The trial court accepted the defence contention and it was held that decree passed by the Nyay Panchayat was not illegal and was not void. The trial court interpreted Section 82 of the Panchayat Raj Act and held that the award given by the arbitrator would be termed as settlement of the dispute. It held that the Nyay Panchayat had jurisdiction to give decision in terms of the award.

4. An appeal was preferred against this decision and the lower appellate court having discussed the case at great length and relying on the decision of this Court reported in 1956 AWR 217 Sheo Jatan Kunwar v. Bhaday Rai and Ors. came to the conclusion that no reference could be made by the Panchayat Adalat u/s 82 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act. It was held that the Panchayat Adalat also not having given opportunity to the parties to file objection the decision of the Panchayat Adalat based on the award was vitiated in law. Accordingly, the lower appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit of the Plaintiff as prayed. The Defendant has come up in appeal to this Court and it has been contended on behalf of the Appellant that the lower appellate court has not correctly interpreted Section 82 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Section 82 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act reads:

82. Special jurisdiction in certain matters--Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, it shall be lawful for a Nyay Panchayat to decide any dispute arising in its local area and not pending in any court in accordance with any settlement, compromise or oath agreed upon in writing by the parties.

It is apparent from this section that u/s 82 of the Panchayat Raj Act it is lawful for the Nyaya Panchayat; to bring about settlement, compromise or decide the case on the agreed oath of the parties. Under the terms of these words "settlement, compromise or oath agreed upon in writing by the parties," in my opinion, reference to arbitration cannot be spelt out. This award given by the arbitrator could be accepted as compromise, settlement or adjustment only if it fulfilled the conditions of Section 47 of the Arbitration Act. Section 47 of the Arbitration Act reads:

47. Subject to the provisions of Section 46 and save in so far as it otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, the provisions of this Act shall apply to all arbitrations and to all proceedings thereunder:

Provided that an arbitration award otherwise obtained may with the consent of all the parties interested be taken into consideration as a compromise or adjustment of a suit by any Court before which the suit is pending.

In this case it is clear that both the parties did not consent to a decree being passed in terms of the awa