1. The question here is whether the Court should interfere in revision to set aside a decree passed in accordance with an award, on the ground that the arbitration was vitiated by material irregularity in that one of the arbitrators used knowledge obtained privately in coming to his decision as an arbitrator. Ghulani Khan v. Muhammad Hassan I.L.R. (1901) Cal. 167 is authority for saying that in the case of an award revision would be more> objectionable than an appeal. It is therefore the rule that the court proceeds very warily in allowing revision in awards. Two cases were referred to by the vakil for the petitioner-one, Kanhaiya Lal v. Khairati (1918) 49 I.C. 303 where an arbitrator made private enquiries from a persons unknown behind the back of one of the parties the plaintiff in the suit. It is there Laid down than an arbitrator must come to his decision on evidence taken before both parties or after having given both parties an opportunity of being present at the enquiry and that making of private enquires vitiated the award. The other case is Daya Kishen v. Dharam Das 4 All. L.J. 159 where the arbitrator made private and secret enquiries the result I of which was not recorded by him. It was held that it was legal misconduct, to make private enquiries and make his award on information which he had privately obtained which the parties had not got opportunities of checking.
2. In this case the evidence is that one of the panchayatdars used to have dealings with the defendant. He went to his shop and noticed a difference in the accounts of defendant with the plaintiff from the accounts before the panchayat. The panchayatdar (Annusami Chetti) communicated his knowledge to the other panchayatdars, both parties, were present and the panchayat agreed with the opinion which he placed before them. The defendant actually admitted that some of the entries against plaintiff were false and fraudulent as suspected by Annuswami Chetti. Further the other panchayatdars examined the accounts for themselves and there is no reason for thinking that they did not form an independent judgment thereon.
3. The information of Annuswami Chetti may have been in the first instance privately obtained, but it was communicated to the other panhayatdars in the presence of the parties and they had opportunity of checking the information or of contradicting it. So far from this, the defendant actually admitted the information was correct. This case clearly does not fall within the principles Laid down in the authorities cited and the Civil Revision Petition must be dismissed with costs.