JUDGMENT 1. The question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the Court of appeal below was right in setting aside the decree of the first Court, based upon an arbitration award, on the ground that there had been no valid reference to arbitration. After hearing the learned vakil for the Appellant, we are of opinion that the question ought to be answered in the affirmative. 2. The lower Appellate Court has found that the vakil who signed the application for reference to arbitration on behalf of the Defendant No. 1 was not, as sec. 506 of the CPC requires, specially authorised to put in such an application. The vakalatnama appointing the vakil has been read out to us ; and we think that the Court of Appeal below has put a correct construction upon that document in holding that there is nothing in it specially authorising the vakil to apply for reference to arbitration. That being so, and there being nothing to show that the reference to arbitration was acquiesced in by the subsequent conduct of the Defendant No. 1, such as there was in the case of Saturjit Pertap Bahadoor Sahi v. Dulhin Golab Koer I. L. R. 24 Cal. 469 (1897) upon which some reliance has been placed. We think that the Court of Appeal below was quite right in holding that there was no valid reference to arbitration. 3. That being so, the order of the lower Appellate Court, setting aside the decree based upon the arbitration award and remanding the case to the Court of first instance, is right and must be affirmed, and this appeal must be dismissed with costs. We assess the hearing fee at one gold mohur.