Ganapatia Pillai, J.
1. This civil revision petition is directed against the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Dindigul based on an award. The objection of Mr. Ramaswami Ayyangar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the lower Court proceeded to pass judgment and grant a decree in terms of the award without complying with the provisions of Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act. It is admitted that the award was produced into Court on 23rd February, 1956, and that the defendant had 30 days, under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, from that date to file objections to the award. Mr. Ramaswamy Iyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, further contends that even if the date of service on the defendant in the suit, which according to the records of the Court, is 2nd February, 1956, is taken to be correct, the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have waited for 30 days from that date before he could pass a judgment in terms of the award. Mr. Krishnamurthi, learned Counsel for the respondent, does not dispute the correctness of this position because the decision in Esuf Rowther v. Davud Rowther (1951) 1 M.L.J. 93 has recognised the mandatory character of the provision in Section 17 of the-Arbitration Act The lower Court has no jurisdiction to pass a decree without complying with the provisions of Section 17. The civil revision petition is therefore allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower Court are set aside and the matteris remitted to the Subordinate Judge who will take the matter on his file and dispose of it according to law. No cost.