1. The first objection to the award is that the arbitrators anted beyond the scope of the submission in including in their award a decision about gunny bags and mustard sends. This objection depends solely on the construction of Exhibit M. I think that the District Munsif's view about it is correct as the document speaks of 'all other matters' also. The nest objection taker is that at one of the hearings one of the arbitrators, D.W. No. 3, was absent and it is contended, on the strength of the rulings in Thammiraju v. Bapiraju 4 Ind. Dec. 428 and Nand Ram v. Hater Chand 7 A. 523, that this vitiated the award altogether. No doubt on one day when the arbitrators met D.W. No. 3 was absent and though D.W. No. 4 says some information regarding the price of generally was obtained from the parties that day, it is contradicted by P.W No. 3, one of the three arbitrators, and he is supported in a way by the evidence of P.W. No. 2. The third arbitrator P.W. No. 3 says no enquiry took place on the day D.W. No. 3 was absent. The District Munsif has found that no enquiry took plate on that day and the District Judge has not displaced that finding. That being so, the abtene of D.W. No. 3 for one day was immaterial, as nothing material seems to have been done that day which in any way affected the award.
2. The rulings quoted, therefore, do not apply. The civil revision petition is dismissed with costs.