Roe, J.:— These are appeals from the order of the Subordinate Judge refusing to set aside an order of the Munsif recording an award made by arbitrators. In accordance with the terms of a decision in the case of Ghulam Khan v. Muhammad Hassan(1) no appeal lies against the recording of the award. The proceedings of the learned Subordinate Judge in hearing the appeal were without jurisdiction. Inasmuch as the papers are on the table before us, we call for the record under S. 115 and proceed to consider whether the action of the Munsif in recording this award was made with or without jurisdiction. There are two points urged before us on which particularly the Munsif had no authority to record the award. The first is that it was not properly referred to arbitration and the second is that the arbitrators named by the Munsif did not join in the proceedings. The third ground urged is that the learned Munsif exercised his jurisdiction without proper discretion in refusing to withdraw the case at an early stage from the arbitrators as soon as he discovered that two of them were connections of the plaintiff. With regard to the first ground it is impossible for us to entertain the objection; it was not placed before the Munsif at all. We have no materials upon which we can say that there was no proper reference to arbitration.
2. With regard to the second ground, the Munsif has found as a fact that the evidence of two arbitrators given before him is true evidence and that the third arbitrator was present throughout the proceedings and only refused to sign the award, when he discovered that it would be against the plaintiffs. The learned Munsif has also set down as an undisputed fact, in his opening of the judgment, that the parties agreed in the first instance to abide by the decision of the majority. It is clear, therefore, chat there has been a decision of the majority come to after full discussion by the whole body of the arbitrators, and that the applicant for revision before us is bound by that decision, even though it is not signed by the minority. This is in accord with the case reported as Kazee Syud Naser Ali v. Mt. Tinoo Dassia(2). The appeals are dismissed with costs. We note that there is no necessity to interfere under S. 115.
3. Sharfuddin, J.:— I agree.
V.S/R.K
4. Appeals dismissed.