JUDGMENT Mukerji, J. - This application for revision has been made under the following circumstances :-The applicants were defendants in an original suit filed in the court of the Munsiff of Dearia. There was reference to arbitration and an award was made. Objections were taken to the validity of the award. One of the grounds taken was that there was no valid reference to arbitration as one of the defendants in the case did not at all pin in the reference. The learned Munsiff passed a very unsatisfactory order which runs as follows: No evidence is adduced in support of the objection. The objections are frivolous and vexatious: must be repelled. Let a decree be made in terms of the award. 2. Although no appeal lay against the decree which followed the award, an appeal was filed by the plaintiffs. The learned 2nd Additional District Judge held that there was no valid reference and therefore the award could not stand. He accepted the appeal, set aside the decree of the court of first instance and remanded the suit for trial on the merits. 3. It is contended for the defendants applicants that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and his decree must be set aside. This contention is supported by the case of Harishanker v. Mt. Rampyari 1923 All. 502. 4. It is contended on behalf of the opposite parties that the learned District Judge was right in his view of the case and there was really no valid reference for arbitration. They also ask this court to take up the matter and pass such orders as the justice of the case may demand. 5. I propose to take this course. It appears to me that the objections to the award taken by the plaintiffs were not properly beard. There was no necessity for any evidence to be adduced and the objections were not frivolous and vexatious. The remarks of the learned District Judge show that on the face of the record there are good grounds for the objections. 6. I therefore set aside the decree of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, send back the case through the lower appellate court to the court of first instance setting aside its order dated the 9th September, 1922. The remarks of the learned District Judge show that on the face of the record there are good grounds for the objections. 6. I therefore set aside the decree of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, send back the case through the lower appellate court to the court of first instance setting aside its order dated the 9th September, 1922. I direct the learned Munsiff to rehear the objections taken by the plaintiffs and decide the case according to the law. 7. As for the costs it is urged that the applicants should get them. I think in the circumstances parties should pay their own costs in this court and in the lower appellate court.