Banerji and Tudball, JJ.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by two plaintiffs, namely Shib Lal and Badri Das, to recover money alleged to be due on two hundis. The suit was brought against two defendants Chatarbhuj and Ganga Prasad. Chatarbhuj defended the suit. An application was made to refer the disputes between the parties to arbitration. This application was made by Chatarbhuj alone among the defendants and not by Ganga Prasad. On behalf of the plaintiffs the reference to arbitration was made by one Bhag Chand and a pleader appointed by him. It has been found that he had a power of attorney from Shib Lal, which authorized him to abide by the oath of any person, but it has not been found whether it gave him authority to refer any matter to arbitration. It has also been found that Bhag Chand had no authority from Badri Das to make a reference to arbitration on his behalf. As we have said above the case was referred to arbitration on behalf of the plaintiffs by Bhag Chand and by a pleader appointed by Bhag Chand on behalf of Badri Das. As Bhag Chand had no authority from Badri Das to refer any matter to arbitration the pleader appointed by him had no such authority. Therefore there was no valid reference to arbitration by Badri Das. Admittedly there was no reference at all to arbitration by Ganga Prasad. Therefore it is manifest that the reference was not made by all the parties to the suit as mentioned in Section 506 of Act XIV of 1882. As there was no reference to arbitration by Badri Das and by one of the defendants, the arbitrators appointed under the reference had no power to decide the matter in controversy and their award was ultra vires. There being no award in law an appeal lay to the court below from the decree which was passed by the court of first instance in accordance with the award and an appeal lies to this Court also. The latest case on the point in this Court is that of Negi Puran v. Hira Singh (1909) 6 A.I.R. 333. As there was no valid referenced arbitration and no valid award, the decree passed in accordance with it cannot be maintained. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decrees of the courts below and remand the case to the court of first instance under Order 41, Rule 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with directions to reinstate the suit in the file of pending cases, under its original number in the register, and to dispose of it according to law. Costs here and hitherto will abide the event.