A pleader does not have the authority to unilaterally refer a case to arbitration without explicit instructions from the client.

Kotval—The minor plaintiff's guardian and the four defendants agreed to refer the entire matter in dispute to the arbitration of five panchas. The agreement was reduced to writing and signed by them all and filed in Court on the 10th January, 1921. On the same day the Court passed an order referring the matter to the five panchas and fixed the 10th February, 1921, for the filing of the award in Court. The order sheet of the 10th February, 1921, runs as follows:

Plaintiff by Mr. Kekre pleader, defendant by Mr. Umesh Dutt. They now say that Mr. Gopal Rao should be the sole arbitrator. They must file an application to the effect. The case will then be referred to Mr. Gopal Rao and he will be requested to submit his award within a fortnight. For 28.2.21.

Application filed and order of reference is made over to Mr. Gopal Rao, pleader.

2. The application is to the following effect: It is submitted that in the above suit four panchas have been appointed for the decision of the suit. We do not desire a decision by those panchas. Now we both parties agree to accept whatever decision Pandit Gopal Rao Sahib vakil alone will give in this case.

3. It is signed only by the two pleaders for the parties namely Messrs. Kekre and Umesh Dutt Pathak.

4. On the 29th March, 1921, Mr. Gopal Rao's award was filed in Court and the 8th April, 1921, was fixed for filing objections. On the 7th April, 1921, defendants 3 and 4 filed an application, in which they urged that only one panch out of the five appointed had decided the Case against them in their absence and set forth certain objections to the award. They said that the award was not acceptable to them and they desired that the Court should proceed with the case.

5. The application is signed by a new pleader Mr. Dharnidhar. On the 8th April, 1921, defendants 1 and 2 were examined in Court and they also stated that they never agreed that the case should be referred to one arbitrator and that the award was not binding on them. They alleged that they never instructed Mr, Patak to refer the case to one arbitrator. The plaintiff's pleader made the following statement:

The reference to Mr. Gopal Rao was made on the joint application of the parties. Mr. Umesh Dutt had appeared for all the defendants and had signed the petition. The order is thus binding on all the defendants.

Mr. Gopal Rao had asked the defendants to produce evidence. But they did not do anything. The plaintiff learns that the defendants had gone to Mr. Gopal Rao, Thus there are no good grounds to set aside the award.

6. The order sheet of the same date shows that Mr. Umesh Dutt Patak was present at the hearing, but was neither examined by the Court nor made any statement himself, as to whether he was instructed to make the application on their behalf. The following issues were fixed by the Court: Whether the defendants had through Mr. Umesh Dutt agreed to refer the matter to the sole arbitration of Gopal Rao; Whether Mr. Umesh Dutt had no power to refer the matter to arbitration on behalf of the defendants; Whether Mr. Gopal Rao had decided in the absence of the defendants after giving them notice; Whether the award can be set aside on any of these grounds.

7. The lower Court writes: I find that, though there was no express authority to Mr. Umesh Dutt, he was fully within his power to refer the matter to the sole arbitrator. The parties had not suggested to Mr. Umesh Dutt to refer the matter to the single arbitrator. No express authority was required for such a purpose. I find that Mr. Umesh Dutt had power to refer the matter as he was placed in charge of the case. Mr. Gopal Rao pleader who gave the award has been examined. I find from his statement that he had given verbal notice to the parties and they failed to appear before him. They did not adduce any evidence. He had thus to depend upon the evidence found on the record of this case. No case is made out for setting aside the award.

8. It is unnecessary to decide for the purposes of thi