1. This is an application to revise an order of the learned Munsif of Mainpuri dated 4th July 1927, by which he accepted an award and directed that a decree be framed in terms of it. It appears from the applicants before us, the defendants in the suit and the plaintiff agreed to refer their differences to the arbitration of three gentlemen. The plaintiff nominated one man as his arbitrator. The defendants nominated one man as their arbitrator and the parties jointly nominated a third arbitrator, whom they called umpire. A reference was made and after a certain stage, Mr. Ram Sahai who had been nominated by the plaintiff absented himself. The plaintiff then went before the Court and stated that his arbitrator had left the locality, that there was no knowing when he was coming back and that he proposed that one Mr. Ganga Sahai should be appointed as his arbitrator. The learned Munsif ordered that the name of Mr. Ganga Sahai be substituted in the order of reference for Mr. Ram Sahai. He said that he passed this order subject to any legal objection that might be taken by the defendants. The arbitration proceeded. The defendants adduced their evidence before all the three arbitrators including Mr. Ganga Sahai and ultimately, the majority made an award in which the gentleman nominated by the defendants as their arbitrator did not join. When the matter came up before the learned Munsif objections were taken to the award by the defendants and one of the objections was that the appointment of Mr. Ganga Sahai contravened the provisions of para. 5, Sch. 2, Civil P.C. The learned Munsif held that para. 5 had no application and having dismissed the objections, passed the order already mentioned. In this Court it has been contended that the appointment of Mr. Ganga Sahai was illegal, inasmuch as the defendants had no previous notice of the appointment. As a proposition of law, we may be prepared to concede that although Mr. Ganga Sahai was a nominee of the plaintiff, the defendants were entitled to see whom the plaintiff was going to appoint and to decide, for themselves, whether they would agree to submit to an arbitration, to the Board of which Mr. Ganga Sahai was one of the members. But the conduct of the defendants in this case shows that they never took any exception to the appointment of Mr. Ganga Sahai. They adduced their evidence and acted as if that gentleman had been legally appointed and it was only after the award had gone against them, that they took exception to it. In our opinion, the defendants are estopped from questioning the validity of the appointment. In the result, the application fails and it is hereby dismissed with costs.