JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia, dated the 19th of December 1900, which makes a decree in accordance with an award. The parties had referred the matter in dispute between them to arbitration. The arbitrator gave his award, and the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in accordance with that award. 2. The Defendant, however, appeals against the decree of the Subordinate Judge on the grounds, first, that there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, and, secondly, that the award was not valid in law, it not having been filed in Court within the time allowed for that purpose. 3. The award purports to have been made on the 21st November 1900. The time for delivering it in Court was the 23rd November 1900. As a matter of fact, it was not submitted to the Court until the 26th November 1900. 4. The learned pleader for the Respondent, however, contends that there is no appeal in tills case and he relies on the last decision on the point, namely, the decision in the case of Ghulam Khan v. Mohamad Hassam 6 C. W. N. 226 : s. c. I. L. R. 29 Cal. 167 (1901). This is sufficient authority for the view that there is no appeal against the award of the arbitration on the ground of misconduct. 5. The learned pleader for the Appellant, however, contends that there is no award in this case, i.e., no award valid in law. We, are of opinion that there was an award valid in law in this case, because the award was made on the 21st of November, which was within the period allowed by law. 6. The pleader for the Appellant maintains, that the award was not BO made. But we are satisfied on the affidavit that the award was signed on the 21st November, and it is a noticeable fact that the Defendant who impugned the validity of the award did not put the arbitrator into the witness-box and examine him. 7. We must therefore take it that the award was made on the 21st November 1900. That being so, it appears to us that the award is good in law. In support of this opinion we need only cite the case of Umersey Premji v. Shamji Kanji I. L. R. 13 Bom. 7. We must therefore take it that the award was made on the 21st November 1900. That being so, it appears to us that the award is good in law. In support of this opinion we need only cite the case of Umersey Premji v. Shamji Kanji I. L. R. 13 Bom. 119 (1888) and the case of Arumugam Chetti v. Arunachalam Chetti I. L. R. 22 Mad. 22 (1898). For these reasons we dismiss this appeal with costs.