1. In this case, the decree is in accordance with the award and there is no objection taken on that score, but it is sought to impeach the decree on other grounds. R. 16 of the 2nd Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that there shall be no appeal from a decree which is in accordance with the award, and it has been held by their Lordships of the Privy Council that there being no appeal from such a decree, a revision petition to revise a decree confirming an award, would be still more objectionable, vide the decision in the case of Ghulam Khan v. Muhammad Hassan(1). But if it can be shown that the lower Court acted without jurisdiction or failed to exercise jurisdiction or acted with material irregularity in dealing with the award, it would be open to the High Court on a proper case being made out to revise such an order. The ruling of the Privy Council has been followed in a number of decisions of this Court and no doubt that represents the law. In this case, grounds Nos. 5 and 6 in the revision petition, cannot at all be said to allege grounds for our interference. It is stated in ground No. 6 that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to frame a scheme in respect of the charity, the reason given, therefor, being that the charity referred to was a public charity. But there is no such finding, it is not even alleged in the pleadings that the charity in question was a public charity. Further, the plaintiff himself in his plaint asked for a scheme to be framed. In these circumstances, we cannot hold that this is a proper ground for exercising our jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC.
2. As regards ground No. 5, it is said that a certain additional amount was allotted by the arbitrator for the carrying on of the charity and this was in excess of his powers.
3. But we find that an issue was raised raising the question, viz., what further provision, if any, should be made for the charity, and so far as we can gather from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge as well as the proceedings before the arbitrator, no objection was raised to the question being dealt with by the arbitrator. On looking at the nature of the dispute between the parties, it does not appear to be unreasonable for the arbitrator to have gone into the matter. This objection also fails. It is not alleged that the Subordinate Judge in dealing with the award has been guilty of any irregularity in the conduct of the proceedings. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that this is not a fit case for our interference under Section 115 of the CPC, and dismiss Civil Revision Petition No. 849 of 1913 with costs.
4. The other petition, No. 850 of 1913, relates to the costs awarded by the Subordinate Judge with reference to the fees of the arbitrator. We think that he was entitled under the terms of the reference and in the circumstances of the case to award proper fees to the arbitrator. He did not include this amount in the decree itself, but dealt with it in a separate order passed on the same day as the decree confirming the award. This is not a matter for interference in revision. Civil Revision Petition No. 850 of 1913 is also dismissed with costs.
S.N/R.K
5. Petitions dismissed.