JUDGMENT Franics W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J. - This appeal must succeed. The history of the case is stated in the petition of the present Respondents to this Court, filed on the 14th July 1902, when they applied for a rule u/s 622 of the Code. 2. The only question before us is whether or not this Court was justified in interfering under that section. 3. Before this Court can interfere under that section, it must be satisfied that the Small Cause Court has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally, for it is upon that ground and upon that ground alone, that the application is based. 4. A somewhat halting reference was made as to its having acted, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, with material irregularity, but this was not pressed. It has not been seriously contended that the Small Cause Court had not jurisdiction to set aside the award in question u/s 521 of the Code, if the Applicant brought his case within that section. 5. That section does not deal with the question of jurisdiction, but specifies the grounds upon which an award may be set aside. 6. The most that can be said here--and it is said--is that the Small Cause Court toot an erroneous view of what amounted to misconduct and therefore, that this Court could interfere u/s 622. I dissent from this proposition. If the Small Cause Court did take such erroneous view, it only means that it formed a wrong conclusion upon the evidence, or, at the highest, has fallen into an error of law. 7. But in neither of these views, taking them to be substantiated, could it be said that the Court acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally see Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh ILR (1884) Cal. 6. I respectfully dissent from the learned Judge in the Court below when he says that misconduct u/s 521 of the Code means conduct coupled with corruption. Corruption necessarily implies misconduct; but misconduct does not of necessity imply corruption. 8. An award may often be set aside on the ground of misconduct, which does not amount to corruption. 6. I respectfully dissent from the learned Judge in the Court below when he says that misconduct u/s 521 of the Code means conduct coupled with corruption. Corruption necessarily implies misconduct; but misconduct does not of necessity imply corruption. 8. An award may often be set aside on the ground of misconduct, which does not amount to corruption. The section says "corruption" or "misconduct." The Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application and we cannot interfere u/s 622 because the Court has taken, if it has taken, in the exercise of that jurisdiction a mistaken view as to what does or does not constitute misconduct. 9. The appeal must be allowed with costs both here and in the Court below. Hill J. 10. I concur. Stevens J. 11. concur.