JUDGMENT

Dalal, J C - The plaintiff Ram Nath sued on the basis of a Chitti three persons in the Court of the Munsif of Utraula. The defendants were Must. Suraj Kumari and Brij Raj Kumari (co-widows of one Ram Saran) and Rattan Lal. On the date of hearing, Rattan Lal and a general agent of Must. Suraj Kumari admitted the claim. Subsequently Ram Nath and Brij Raj Kumari entered into an agreement to refer the question in dispute between them to arbitration and an award was given by the arbitrator. A decree was passed by the Court in terms of the award. The objections made to the award in the lower Court are not repeated here. The main point urged in revision in this Court is that the agreement to refer the matter to arbitration was invalid and that therefore the lower Court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree in terms of the award. The objection is based on the words of para. 1, Sch. II of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was argued that all the parties interested in the suit must agree to refer the matter to arbitration, and in the present case Rattan Lal and Must. Suraj Kumari had not agreed. The learned Counsel of the applicant quoted Polita Pavro Panda v. Narasinga Panda (1919) 42 Mad. 632 where rulings in support of the view taken by that High Court are conveniently collected. The facts of that case, however, and of the case referred to in that judgment are different from the facts of the present case. The party whose agreement to a reference was wanting absented himself and had not admitted the plaintiff's claim. A person who absents himself from the proceedings in a suit is equally interested in the result of the suit as those who present themselves in Court. As regards n admission also, there may be cases where the interest of the parties admitting the matter in suit may continue even after the admission. In the present case, for instance, if Rattan Lal and Mt. Suraj Kumari had admitted their joint liability with Brij Raj Kumari or a liability to the extent only of two-thirds of the plaintiff's claim it could have been argued that they would be interested in the result of the dispute between the plaintiff and Mt. Brij Raj Kumari, whether the latter was liable to the plaintiff or not. In the present case the admission of the plaintiff's claim was complete and without any reservation. It was not stated that these two defendants would be liable only if Mt. Brij Raj Kumari was liable or that they were liable to pay only a proportion of the debt. The admission was such as to entitle them to a judgment under Order 12, Rule 6 without waiting for the determination of any other question arising in the suit. Under the circumstances my opinion is that they were no longer interested in the suit after the manner in which they recorded their admission. They were therefore not necessary parties to the agreement to refer the matter to arbitration.

2. The third ground of revision has no force. The arbitrator was a pleader and has given his decision with care. He has not travelled beyond the issues referred to him. I dismiss this appeal with costs.