JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Faridpur, dated the 5th January 1906, giving effect to an award so far as the Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned and setting it aside with regard to the other three Defendants Nos. 1, 5 and 6. The learned District Judge has remanded the case to the first Court for trial, with regard to the Defendants Nos. 1, 5 and 6, who were not parties to the reference to arbitration and who, he holds, are not bound by the award. Now, the surprising thing about the appeal is, that not only the Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are bound by the award appeal against it, but the Defendants Nos. 1, 5 and 6 join in the appeal although they are not affected by the award and although it has been expressly set aside with regard to them. 2. The case related to a right of way claimed by the Plaintiff, which the Defendants were jointly alleged to have obstructed. It was referred to arbitration; but it appears now that only the Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 joined in the reference to arbitration and that the Defendants Nos. 1, 5 and 6 took no part in the application for reference to arbitration. The Defendant No. 1 appeared in the suit and put in a written statement, but he seems to have subsequently absented himself. The Defendants Nos. 5 and 6 did not appear in the suit, nor take any part in the reference. But the Defendant No. 6 appeared before the arbitrators for a certain period. Now, the Defendant No. 6 is the brother of the Defendant No. 5; and the Defendant No. 1 is the brother of the Defendant No. 2; who joined in the application for a reference to arbitration. The learned pleader for the Appellants contends that in these circumstances the whole award is bad and should be set aside, not only as against the Defendants Nos. 1, 5 and 6, but as against the Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 3. There can be no doubt that, under the provisions of sec. 506 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a reference to arbitration should have the concurrence of all the parties to the suit. 1, 5 and 6, but as against the Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 3. There can be no doubt that, under the provisions of sec. 506 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a reference to arbitration should have the concurrence of all the parties to the suit. But we do not find that, when a reference to arbitration is preferred to a Court and an award made upon it, there is any provision for the setting aside of that award on the ground of the irregularity of the reference under sec. 506. The only section which provides for the setting aside of an award, once made, is sec. 521; and an award can be set aside under sec. 521 only on the grounds specified in that section. Irregularity in the reference to arbitration and omission of the concurrence of all the parties in the application do not seem to be any of the grounds on which an award, once made, can be set aside. 4. We, therefore, think that the appeal in this case cannot succeed; and we are fortified in this conclusion by the judgment in the case of The Chairman of the Purnea Municipality v. Siva Sankar Ram I. L. R. 33 Cal. 899 (1906) in which it has been held that where, on the application of the Plaintiff and one of the Defendants, the others not having entered appearance, the case was referred to arbitration and a decree was passed under sec. 522, C. P. C., in accordance with the award dismissing the suit, the decree could not be challenged by way of appeal, on the ground that there was no valid and legal award, and that it was unnecessary to go into the question whether the award was or was not a legal and valid award by reason of the fact that some of the Defendants were not parties to the reference. 5. The merits of the case seem also not to require any interference with the award. The parties have all a joint interest and some of them are close relations. The Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, as has already been mentioned, are brothers and so are the Defendants Nos. 5 and 6. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Defendant No. 1 purposely abstained from appearing in the case, while putting forth his brother the Defendant No. 2 to contest it. The Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, as has already been mentioned, are brothers and so are the Defendants Nos. 5 and 6. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Defendant No. 1 purposely abstained from appearing in the case, while putting forth his brother the Defendant No. 2 to contest it. The Defendant No. 6 appeared before the arbitrators and apparently watched the proceedings, if he did not take part in them. But his brother, the Defendant No. 5, carefully abstained from appearing before the arbitrators. The Defendant No. 1 did not concur in the application for reference to arbitration. We think, therefore, that these persons were well aware of the proceedings. They raised no objection to the reference to arbitration, although aware of it, as they must have been; and they remained quiescent with a view to see whether the award would be in their favour, in which case, they would, of course, have accepted it; and they now came forward simply because it has gone against them. They seem to us to have waived their right to contest the regularity of the reference to arbitration. The appeal is dismissed with costs.