JUDGMENT Carnduff, J. - The Petitioner, Mohesh Chandra Kundu, claimed Rs. 6,000 odd as the balance due to him on various transactions in respect of the purchase and sale of jute from the Opposite Party, Nandakumar Kundu. The opposite party, on the other hand, claimed that there was a balance of Rs. 5,000 odd due to him on the transactions. The dispute was referred to an arbitrator without the intervention of the Court, and the arbitrator eventually awarded Rs. 2,005 as due to the Opposite Party from the Petitioner. The Opposite Party then applied to the Subordinate Judge at Barisal under paragraph 20 of the Second Schedule to the CPC to have the award filed in Court. The Subordinate Judge allowed the application. The petitioner thereupon appealed against this order under sec, 104, sub-sec. (1), clause (f) of the Code to the District Judge, who held by an order passed on the 24th September last, that the appeal lay to the High Court. Accordingly the memorandum of appeal was returned and was presented to this Court as soon as it re opened after the long vacation. It was then out of time and the Petitioner obtained/from us the present Rule, by which the Opposite Party was called upon to show cause why the time for filing the Appeal in this Court should not be extended, or, in the alternative, why the order of the District Judge should not be set aside and the Appeal remanded to him for re-hearing. Two questions thus arise, namely, first whether the District Judge was right, and, secondly, if so, whether the time for appealing to this Court should be extended under sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. 2. As regards the first point, sec. 21, subsection (1) clause (a) of the Bengal, Agra, and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 provides that an Appeal from a decree or order of a Subordinate Judge shall lie to the District Judge where the value of the original suit in which, or in any proceeding out of which, the decree or order was made, did not exceed five thousand rupees. 3. Para. 20, cl. (2) of the Second Schedule to the Code provides that an application for filing an award shall be numbered and registered as a suit between the Applicant as Plaintiff and the other parties as Defendants, and para. 3. Para. 20, cl. (2) of the Second Schedule to the Code provides that an application for filing an award shall be numbered and registered as a suit between the Applicant as Plaintiff and the other parties as Defendants, and para. 21 provides that where the Court is satisfied that the matter has been referred to arbitration and that an award which is not impeachable except on certain grounds has been made thereon, the Court shall order the award to be filed and shall proceed to pronounce judgment according thereto. 4. The position, then, seems, to be this: By reason of his application to have the award in his favour filed in Court the Opposite Party is to be regarded as a Plaintiff suing the Petitioner in the Court applied to for the amount of the award, that is, for Rs. 2,005. That Court had nothing whatever to do with the merits of the case or the subject-matter of the original dispute, but had merely to decide, with reference to the provisions I have just quoted, whether there had been an arbitration and an award. Had it found that there had not been such an arbitration or award, the parties would, I presume, have been relegated to the position which they occupied before the reference to arbitration and would have had to begin again de novo. But, as the matter stands, it seems to me that the value of what may be called the suit was simply Rs. 2,005. In this view, the District Judge was wrong and he ought to have tried the appeal. An argument has been founded on the language of para. 20 of the Second Schedule to the Code, under which the forum is made to depend in the first instance on the "subject-matter of the award." It is contended that, as was held in Narsingh Das v. Ajodhya Prosad Sukul I. L. R. 31 Cal. 203 (1903) under the corresponding provisions of sec. 525 of the Code of 1882, that what is meant is the dispute referred to arbitration. But I am inclined to think that there is a difference between the words "the matter to which the award relates", which were employed in the old Code, and the phrase "the subject-matter of the award", which is used in the new. 525 of the Code of 1882, that what is meant is the dispute referred to arbitration. But I am inclined to think that there is a difference between the words "the matter to which the award relates", which were employed in the old Code, and the phrase "the subject-matter of the award", which is used in the new. And, having regard to the change of language, to what an award is, and to the context, I am of opinion that the Legislature in 1908 must have intended to make the value depend on the thing awarded rather than on the matter originally in dispute. As I have already pointed out, the Court asked to file the award has nothing to do with the merits of the original dispute, and, that being so, I fail to see any reason for making the forum depend on the value of the whole dispute. 5. In the result, I would make this Rule absolute, set aside the order of the District Judge, dated the 24th September 1913, and direct that the appeal be heard by him. I would make the costs of this hearing costs in the cause, and assess the hearing fee at two gold mohurs. 6. Let the records of both the Rule and the Appeal be sent down at once. Richardson, J. I agree though with some hesitation as to the true meaning of the expression "subject-matter of the award", which occurs in r. 20 of the Second Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code.