Raghava Rao, J.
1. This revision petition has been pre-ferred by defendant in O. S. No. 37 of 1943 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore. The order against which the revision petition has been preferred is that of the learned District Judge of Coimbatore affirming the order of the Subordinate Judge in I. A. No. 511 of 1944 in the orginial suit I. A. No. 511 was filed by the plaintiff in the suit for recording a certain award decision under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P. C.
2. The application having been ordered by the Courts below, learned counsel of defendants-petitioners 4 urges before me that the provisions of Section 47, Arbitration Act, have not been sufficiently borne in mind and correctly given effect to by the Courts below. Defendant 4 was not a party to the reference to arbi-tration which resulted in the award on the basis of which the Court was invited to make a decree in terms thereof. There was, therefore, no arbitration award with reference to defendant 4 as the expression 'award' which means an arbitration award, has to be understood in relation to the definition of the term 'arbitration agreement' in Section 2(a) of the Act. And so says Mr. Ramachandra Iyer in his able and forceful argument, it cannot be held that there was any arbitration against defendant 4 in conformity with the provisions of the statute. If there waa none such, says learned counsel next, it follows that the award decision cannot be accepted or taken into consideration so far as defendant 4 is concerned as a compromise or adjustment of a suit by the Court before which the suit waa pending. In the course of the argument before me the case in Arumuga Mudaliar v. Balasu-bramania Mudaliar : AIR1945Mad294 has been brought to my notice, which the learned advocate for the petitioner has distinguished as a case in which therewas a valid arbitration reference from the veryinception which there is not in the present caaeso far as defendant 4 is concerned. I must say,I am impressed with tha argument of learnedcounsel so far. But then I have felt the difficulty and I have put it to learned counsel thatpossibly the present case might well be considered as one ia which, after the award wasmade by the arbitrators which may noti per se bebinding on defendant 4, the Courts below havespelt out from the conduct of the parties anagreement on the part of defendant 4 that sheshould abide by what the arbitrator had actuallydeclared as the rights and obligations of theparties in respect of the suit property. Theanswer which Mr. Ramachandra Iyer hasattempted is that the only case of the plaintiffin the Courts below was that defendant 4 wasin fact and in truth a patty to the reference toarbitration and knew everything about it andwas consequently bound by the proceedingsbefore the arbitrators and their award. It, however, seems to ma that that is nob the exact factof the situation. It does appear that before thetrial Court tha point was made that the awarddecision of the arbitrators might well be regard-ed as representing a certain compromise towhich, on account of the assent given by defen-dant 4 later, effect might be given under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P. C. That, is in my opinion fairlyclear from a reading of the last paragraph of thejudgment in two portions of which the learnedSubordinate Judge has dealt with the positionthat because all the parties have signed theaward decision including defendant 4 the decision must be regarded as in effect a compromiseentered into between the parties based on theaward. If this view of the situation which wassuggested by me in the course of the argumentsaccepted as properly borne out by the way, inwhich the case was presented to the Courtsbelow for decision, it is amply clear on thewhole that there is no need for me to disturbthe decision of the Courts below with referenceto the application under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil P. C.,that was made by the plaintiff notwithstandingthat defendant 4 was not a patty to the originalreference to arbitration. Defendant 4 must betreated as bound for the reasons given in theforegoing, by the award rendered by the arbitrator and the decree that might well be passed onthe basis of such a compromise under Order 23, Rule 3must be regarded as binding on defendant 4 aswell as the other parties to the suit. This civilrevision petition accordingly fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.