1. This is an application in revision from the decision of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Muttra sitting as a Judge of Small Causes. The plaintiff sued two defendants, Babu Ram and Tursi Ram. Before judgment the plaintiff and Tursi Ram agreed to submit their dispute to arbitration. Babu Ram was not consulted in the matter, and has really done nothing to prosecute his defence, except file a written statement. The claim against Tursi Ram and Babu Ram was a joint and several claim. An arbitration order was made, and the arbitrators have issued their award. The award was made with the consent of Tursi Ram, and he paid Rs. 100 in part satisfaction of the award. When the award was filed in Court Tursi Ram first of all stated that he agreed to the award, but subsequently withdrew his consent and refused to sign his statement. All these facts I get from the judgment of the lower Court. Tursi Ram then filed an objection to the award, and his objection was that as Babu Ram, who was one of the parties interested in the suit within the meaning of Schedule 2, Civil P.C., para. 1 (1), had not joined in the arbitration, the award was invalid. The learned Judge in the Court below has found against Tursi Ram upon that point. Tursi Ram has now filed this application in revision.
2. It is strongly pressed by Mr. Chaturvedi, who appears for the applicant, that there was no jurisdiction in the lower Court to make the order as to arbitration, and that therefore I must accept this application and set aside the award. It is quite clear, in my opinion, that the award was made without jurisdiction and is invalid. Baby Ram was one of the parties interested and he did not agree that the matter in dispute between the parties should be referred to arbitration. Technically Mr. Chaturvedi is right when he contends that the award is invalid. He further contends that this Court must interfere when it is a matter of jurisdiction. I have invited him to draw my attention to one decided case where it has been laid down that in an application under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, where a matter of jurisdiction is involved the High Court must interfere. I am satisfied that in all revisional applications under Section 25 the High Court must be satisfied, before it interferes, that some substantial injustice has been done. In other words, that there are merits in the application apart from technicality. In this case the application has no merits whatever. The applicant was jointly and severally liable for the amount claimed with Babu Ram. He himself agreed to submit the matter of his liability to the plaintiff to the decision of arbitrators. Those arbitrators, with his consent, have decided against him. It is impossible to imagine a case where there are less merits. Section 25 enacts that the High Court may pass 'such orders with respect thereto as it thinks fit.' The order that I think is fitting on this occasion is that the application be dismissed with costs.