JUDGMENT

Jai Lal, J. - The parties to this litigation being joint owners of property both moveable and immovable, the latter description of it also including agricultural land, entered into an agreement to refer the question of the division of the property to arbitrators by a written-agreement dated 3rd February 1925. The appellants Asa Nand and others on 1st June 1925 presented an application in the Court of the District Judge of Dera Ghazi Khan under Clause 17, Schedule 2, Civil P.C., praying that the agreement be filed in Court and the learned Judge issued a notice to the other party, who is the respondent in this appeal, to show cause why the agreement for reference-to arbitration should not be filed in Court. In pursuance of this notice the respondent appeared in Court and expressly stated in the written statement filed by him that he had "no objection of any sort" to the application being granted. The application was consequently granted and the arbitrators were directed to file their award within a time fixed by the Court. In the meantime one of the arbitrators having resigned another arbitrator was appointed by the District. Judge in his place and this matter is not the subject of any controversy before-us on this appeal.

2. It seems that on 5th February 1926, the arbitrators submitted what is described by the District Judge as an interlocutory report and asked for an extension of time to make their award. This was granted. It also appears that the respondent having discovered during the arbitration proceedings that the award was not likely to be favourable to him presented an application on 23rd April 1926, to the District Judge purporting to be under Section 151, Civil P.C., praying that the order for filing the agreement for reference to the arbitration as well as the order for making the reference be cancelled on the ground that as the reference embodied question of division of agricultural land and such a question being expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of the civil Courts the Court had no jurisdiction to pass the order making the reference to arbitration. This application was dismissed by the District Judge on 2nd June 1926, and it was held that as a question of title was distinctly involved the civil Court had jurisdiction in the matter. This order is a detailed order and was passed after consideration of all the judicial authorities cited by both parties.

3. On the day when this order was passed the award of the arbitrators which bears the date of 28th May 1926, had been made and submitted to the Court. After disallowing the respondent's objection as to jurisdiction the learned Judge proceeded to frame issues on the objections raised by the respondent against the award and the first issue was: "Is the reference to arbitration not valid? Evidence was then recorded and finally the case came up for hearing before Mr. Din Mohammad. District Judge, the learned Judge who had passed the order of 2nd June 1926, having in the meantime been transferred. Mr. Din Mohammad differed from the view of his predecessor-in-office on the point of jurisdiction of the Court to order the filing of the agreement to refer to arbitration in this case and dismissed the application, but it is to be noted that with regard to all other objections to the award raised by the respondent he found against him, that is the respondent.

4. This is an appeal by Asa Nand and others who had made the application for an order that the agreement to refer be filed in Court and it is contended on their behalf that the learned District Judge who finally decided this case had no jurisdiction to go behind the order ?of his predecessor-in-office; and secondly that the civil Courts had jurisdiction to order the filing of the agreement to refer to arbitration in the present case.

5. With regard to the first ground of attack I have already stated above that Lala Prabhu Dayal who passed the order of 2nd June 1926, disallowing the respondent's objection had consi