JUDGMENT : CHAMIER, J. 1. This was a suit by the appellant against the Mahbub and Badal for recovery of Rs. 1,331-15-9. The appellant and the respondent, Mahbub, referred the matter in dispute in the case to the arbitration of three persons. The respondent, Badal, did not join in-the reference. An award was made in due course by two of the arbitrators, and a decree dismissing the suit was passed in accordance therewith. The appellant appealed and the respondents took a preliminary objection that no appeal lay, inasmuch as the decree was in accordance with the award. To that the appellant replied that there was no award, because all the parties to the suit had not joined in the reference. The lower appellate court held that there had been a valid reference and dismissed the appeal. 2. In second appeal it is again urged that there was no award at all in as much as all the parties to the suit did not join in the reference. Several cases have been cited. 3. The first is that of Pitam Mal v. Sadiq Ali, [1898] I.L.R., 24 All., 229 in which it was held that the words “all the parties to a suit” in section 506 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882 must be read with the succeeding words “any matter in difference between them in the suit” and did not necessarily include parties, who never put in any appearance and between whom and others there was no matter in dispute. The second case was that of Kadhu Singh v. Baljit Singh, [1907] I.L.R., 29 All, 423 in which it was held that a reference made by some only of the parties to a suit was invalid. The court referred to the case of Pitam Mal v. Sadiq Ali, and pointed out that what had been held in that case was that all the parties interested in a dispute should join in a reference to arbitration. The third case mentioned was Ishar Das v. Keshab Deo, [1910] I.L.R. 32 All. The court referred to the case of Pitam Mal v. Sadiq Ali, and pointed out that what had been held in that case was that all the parties interested in a dispute should join in a reference to arbitration. The third case mentioned was Ishar Das v. Keshab Deo, [1910] I.L.R. 32 All. 657 in which it was pointed out that there has been a significant alteration in the wording of paragraph I of the second schedule to the present Cede of Civil Procedure which corresponds with section 506 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, paragraph I of the second schedule providing that “where in any suit all the parties interested agree that any matter in difference between them shall be referred to arbitration, they may, at any time before judgment is pronounced, apply to the court for an order of reference.” In that case a reference to arbitration and an award were upheld on the ground that all the parties interested had joined in the reference. In arriving at that conclusion the learned Judges said that one Bhagwan Singh had never put in an appearance or contested the suit and in the events which happened appeared to have nothing whatever to do with its result, inasmuch as by the award he had been exempted from the plaintiff's claim. That is exactly what has happened in the present case, and it is contended that the reference was a good reference although Badal did not join in it because by the award he has been exempted from the appellant's claim. We do not think that the learned Judges who decided the case of Ishar Das v. Keshab Deo, intended to lay down that the question whether a person who was interested within the meaning of section I of the second schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 depends upon whether the award is against him or in his favour. It seems quite clear that the question whether a party is interested or not depends upon his position at the time when the reference was made, and this view is supported by the recent decision in Ajudhin v. Adhin, F.A., F.O. 54 of 1910, decided on the 6th of February, 1911. In that case four out of nine defendants joined with the plaintiff in referring the matter in dispute to arbitration. In that case four out of nine defendants joined with the plaintiff in referring the matter in dispute to arbitration. The other defendants were absent and had not defended the suit, but they were not merely pro forma defendants, and Knox and Banerji, JJ. held that as all the parties had not joined in the reference, the reference was invalid and the award which followed thereon was not a valid award. In the present case it is quite clear that the respondent, Badal, was interested in the dispute at the time when the reference was made. The Code does not contemplate a reference to arbitration between the plaintiff and one defendant and a trial between the plaintiff and another defendant. As the respondent, Badal, was not a party to the reference, the reference was invalid and it must be held that the award which followed was invalid. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the decisions of the courts below and remand the case through the lower appellate court to the court of first instance for trial on the merits.