JUDGMENT : CHAMIER, J. This is an application for revision of an order of the Court of Small Causes at Dehra Dun, rejecting an application for restoration of a case which had been struck off in the following circumstances :—The plaintiff sued the defendant for her wages and the case was referred to arbitration. On the date fixed by the arbitrator, the plaintiff appeared but declined either to give evidence herself or to produce witnesses. Thereupon the arbitrator reported the case to the court and the court issued notice to the plaintiff to show cause why the suit should not be dismissed. The plaintiff failed to show cause and the suit was dismissed. She then applied to have the dismissal set aside, but her application was rejected. It is against the order rejecting that application that the present application to this Court is directed. It is argued that the case is covered by paragraph 7(2) of Schedule II of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears to me that the enactment referred to does not apply to the present case at all. It provides that “persons not attending in accordance with such process or making any other default, or refusing to give their evidence, or guilty of any contempt to the arbitrator during the investigation of the matters referred, shall be subject to the like disadvantages, penalties, and punishments, by order of the court on the representation of the arbitrator, as they would incur for the like offences in suits tried before the court.” It is suggested that the words “refusing to give their evidence” apply to the present case. But it seems to me quite clear that these words are intended to refer the case of a person who refuses to give evidence when placed on oath and required to answer questions put to him. A party is at liberty to produce evidence or not as he pleases. If, as in the present case, he elects not to produce any evidence, he cannot be said to refuse to give evidence within the meaning of the enactment referred to. When the arbitrator found that the plaintiff declined to give any evidence, he should have proceeded to dispose, of the matter referred to him. 2. The burden of proof being on the plaintiff, his award would presumably have been against her, and the court would then have dismissed the suit. When the arbitrator found that the plaintiff declined to give any evidence, he should have proceeded to dispose, of the matter referred to him. 2. The burden of proof being on the plaintiff, his award would presumably have been against her, and the court would then have dismissed the suit. It was not necessary for him to refer the matter to the court, nor did paragraph 7 of Schedule II justify him in doing so. His procedure was irregular. So also was the procedure of the court. But it is not the practice of the court under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to interfere merely for the purpose of correcting procedure where substantial justice has been done. In the present case the plaintiff seems to have been guilty of persistent default. She had ample opportunity of producing evidence before the arbitrator, and even when she was given an opportunity of explaining her conduct in the arbitration proceedings, she did not attempt to do so. In these circumstances I must decline to interfere. The application is dismissed.