1. We think that the learned Judge went a little too far in cancelling the order of the 15th of July 1922. We think we understand what his intention was, but it has left the matter in somewhat of a muddle, because if the order of the 15th of July is cancelled, the application ceases to exist, and the notice to the parties and the arbitrators is no longer effective. On the other hand the parties before us are agreed that the application has not been disposed of and is still pending. All we can do therefore is, while suggesting that the arbitrators shall not go on with their arbitration while the application to revoke the submission is pending, to cancel the order of Mr. Holme of the 13th of August 1923, and to send the matter back in order that the application for revocation be heard and determined at a very early date. If the District Court of Cawnpore possesses a copy of the last Edition of Russell on arbitration, namely the 10th Edition 1919, edited by Mr. Hudson, it will find in a very small compass in sub-S. (4) of S. 1 of Part I, all the principles set out which ought to govern the decision of an application for leave to revoke. For the convenience of the Court, in case this book is not available, we may mention that it has always been, under the corresponding section in England, held by English Courts that in giving leave to revoke a submission, the Court shall be satisfied that a sub-stantial miscarriage of justice will take place in the event of its refusal. It would be contrary to justice to give leave to revoke a submission to a party who, as a consideration for a contract, had agreed to submit any disputes, whether of law or fact, which might arise, to arbitration, when he found the case going against him. The exercise of the power of giving leave to revoke is in general limited to cases where the arbitrators are exceeding their jurisdiction, or refusing jurisdiction, or failing to do all that their jurisdiction requires them to do, and the principle underlying the exercise of the power to revoke is, that the parties take the arbitrators for better or for worse, that their decision is final both as to law and fact, that unless a substantial miscarriage of justice may take place, leave ought not to be given, and it is no miscarriage of justice for a party to be injured by had law which he has agreed to be bound by.
2. We set aside the order of the 13th August 1923, and direct the record to be returned to the lower Court for disposal without delay.
3. The costs will be costs in the application and will include in this Court fees on the higher scale.
4. Application allowed.
5. Order set aside.