JUDGMENT

1. This is a defendant's appeal from an order of the Court below filing an agreement of reference to arbitration. The application was rather a belated one and was filed on 12th May 1933, on the strength of an agreement of reference to arbitration, dated 12th May 1930. The agreement was not filed along with the application, but it was stated that it had been given to the head arbitrator. Certain terms of the agreement were mentioned in para. 6 of the plaint. The defendant admitted only a part of para. 6 and did not admit the rest of the allegations containing the terms of the agreement. The fact that an agreement of reference to arbitration had been entered into was admitted. It was pleaded that, as the original agreement was not forthcoming, it could not be ordered to be filed. There was a further plea that the person who had agreed on behalf of the defendant had no authority to do so.

2. The Court below has come to the conclusion that the "Pairokar" of the defendant had authority to act on his behalf, and has also thought that, although the original document is not forthcoming yet an order for filing can be made. We do not think it necessary to go into the question whether