1. This rule is directed against the order of the learned Munsif of Barh, setting aside an award in an arbitration by which the parties appear to have agreed that they would be bound by the finding of the arbitrators. The learned Judge has decided that the award cannot stand as the arbitrators made private enquiries behind the backs of the parties.
2. Now it is not a matter for me to decide, but if that fact which is stated by the learned Judge is established, it necessarily vitiates the award; because apart from an agreement to allow the arbitrators to do so, private enquiries behind the backs of the parties is against the ordinary rules of justice.
3. But it is not on that ground that I come to the conclusion at which I arrive. The question whether the award was bad on the face of it or whether I there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrators was entirely a question for the learned Judge; and his order cannot be disturbed unless facts are gone into and this Court comes to a finding upon those facts.
4. It is obvious that this Court has no jurisdiction to adopt that course. In my judgment the order of the learned Judge, whether it was right or whether it was wrong, was entirely within his jurisdiction.
5. That would conclude the matter, but a preliminary objection is taken, it being contended that an order of this character is not open to revision under Section 115 of the CPC, for the reason that it was not a case which had been decided (to use the words of the section) in the nature of an interlocutory order preceding the hearing of the case itself. In my judgment both the points taken on behalf of the respondents succeed and the rule must therefore be discharged with costs hearing fee two gold mohurs.
R.K
6. Rule discharged.