Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.
1. In this case the Subordinate Judge Mr. Mohile has disregarded a circular of this Court and allowed a most transparent abuse of judicial process. A money-lender obtains from an Officer at Aurangabad a promissory note for Rs. 4, 931, payable in Ahmedabad or in Baroda, with interest, dated the 9th of July 1913, and under date the 11th of July two other documents are obtained from the Officer, one in the form of a reference to arbitration whereby the Officer and the money-lender agree to refer the matter of money-dealings between them to Bhailal Nandlal, Pleader of Ahmedabad, and nominate him arbitrator to settle the accounts and pass a judgment against the Officer in favour of the money-lender on the strength of the promissory-note of the 9th of July. The other document is a Vakilpatra by the Officer appointing Velchand Umedchand of Ahmedabad as his pleader to authorize him to appear in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad and admit the award that may be passed against him by Bhailal Nandlal in the matter of money transactions between himself and Velchand Chhaganlal. Both the last mentioned documents are on printed forms supplied presumably by the money-lender Then a plaint is filed on the 16th of July by the moneylender's Mukhtyar stating that in order to settle the dispute relating to the promissory-note of the 9th of July the parties appointed the pleader as Panch on the 11th, who decided the matter and made his award on the 16th directing that the defendant should pay the plaintiff at Ahmedabad Rs. 4, 931 in cash by instalments, and Rs. 30 for pleader's fee; and the plaint prayed for Scctt a decree in terms of the award. Then there is an affidavit of the agent of the money-lender, dated the 21st of July, stating that as the defendant has at present no means to pay off the debt, we appointed a Panch, and the Panch fixed instalments as mentioned above.
2. Mr. Mohile, the Subordinate Judge, on the 22nd of July entertained the application to pass a decree in accordance with the so-called award. He says:-' There appears to be a real point of difference between the plaintiff and the defendant, that is the amount due by the latter to the former and the amount of instalments which the defendant should pay to the plaintiff'. It was quite clear upon the proceedings that there was no point of difference between the parties and no dispute is to the amount of instalments which-should be paid. We r that the regret First Class Subordinate Judge should have allowed his Court to be used for a proceeding of this kind, and it reflects but little credit on his judicial capacity that he should have permitted it. We set aside the decree under Sections 115 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.