JUDGMENT Blair, J.
1. This is the appeal of an unsuccessful party to arbitration proceedings. The only point opened in second appeal is whether the award made was in point of law an award. It seems to me that the findings of fact by the learned Judge do amount to this, that the award is the expression of the mind and the will of the person who was nominated arbitrator. The award is of course signed by him. It might have been possible for objection to be taken to the arbitration proceedings upon the ground of the interference of the arbitrator's master, a pleader, had not such interference taken place with the full assent of the present appellant. In the face of such consent on his part it would not be open to him to revoke his consent to the arbitration proceedings. It would not lie in his mouth to urge as good cause for such revocation anything done by the arbitrator in the course of the proceedings, if the thing done was what he himself had assented to. I think the finding of the Judge that the award is the award of the arbitrator Chander Sen means, not only that he signed the award but that it was in the fullest legal sense his award, though the conclusions arrived at may have been influenced by another person, who, by the consent of the parties, was an assisting party to the arbitration proceedings. I see no reason to disturb the findings of the Judge. I would dismiss the appeal with costs.
Aikman, J.
2. I am of the same opinion. The respondent applied under Section 525 of the Code of Civil Procedure to have an award filed in Court. The application was resisted by the appellant here, but the Court made an order against him under the provisions of Section 526 of the Code. On appeal the order was confirmed by the District Judge. In this second appeal it is urged that there was no valid award. That is the only ground upon which we could interfere. The reference to arbitration shows that the parties appointed one Chander Sen, the clerk of a pleader named Babu Raghubir Saran, as arbitrator to decide the matters in dispute between them. The award on the face of it purports to have been made by the arbitrator chosen by the parties. It is, however, contended that the person who did really make the award was Chander Sen's master Raghubir Saran. It has been found by the Lower Appellate Court that Chander Sen was selected by the parties on his master Raghubir Saran promising to help him in every way. That Chander Sen took more than a nominal part in the proceedings is clear from the evidence of Raghubir Saran, a witness whom the Judge describes as absolutely above suspicion. Even if Chander Sen allowed himself to be unduly influenced by Raghubir Saran, that would not under the circumstances of this case amount to misconduct on his part and would not be a matter with which we could deal in appeal.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant farther contended that the award was invalid, inasmuch as his client had revoked the submission to arbitration before the award was pronounced. The learned Counsel went so far as to contend that a party who refers a question to arbitration can at his pleasure, and without any cause shown, withdraw from the submission at any time before the award has been given. On this point he referred to Russell on the Power and Duty of an Arbitrator. This is a proposition to which I cannot assent. In the case of Pestonjee Nussurwanjee v. Manockjee & Co. 12 Moo. I.A. 112, it was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council that "where parties had agreed to submit the matter in difference between them to the arbitration of one or more specified persons, no party to such agreement could revoke the submission unless for good cause, and that a mere arbitrary revocation of authority would not be permitted." The learned Counsel has entirely failed to show that any good cause existed which would have, justified his client in withdrawing from the submission, if he withdrew at all which is open to doubt. I think the Lower Appellate Court properly dismissed the appeal.
4. The order of the Court is that this appeal be dismissed with costs.