JUDGMENT Curgenven, J. 1. This was a suit referred to arbitration and the finding of fact is that out of five arbitrators one was absent during the examination of one of the witnesses. The learned District Munsif is of opinion that the terms of reference provided for such a contingency inasmuch as the parties agreed that the opinion of the majority should be accepted. But it is one thing to say that and quite another thing to say that the parties agreed that the arbitration might be conducted by a majority, or by less than the full number of arbitrators. This view of the Lower Court has not been supported here and it must be found on the authority of Thanimiraju v. Bapiraju I.L.R. (1888) 12 M. 113-that it was incumbent on each of the arbitrators to be present at each of the meetings and that accordingly, if the matter stood there, the award would be liable to be set aside as illegal. The learned District Munsif has, however, also found that, if there was any irregularity from this cause, the plaintiff has waived it. He notes that the plaintiffs next friend was present on each occasion and has admitted that he took no notice of the circumstance that one of the arbitrators was on one occasion absent. It was his business to object at the time and not to allow the proceedings to go on and terminate. The principle has been laid down by the Privy Council in Chowdhri Murtaza Hossein v. Mussumat Bibi Bechunnissa "The appellant," their Lordships say, having a clear knowledge of the circumstances on which he might have founded an objection to the arbitrators proceeding to make their award, did submit to the arbitration going on; that he allowed the arbitrators to deal with the case as it stood before them, taking his chance of the decision being more or less favourable to himself; and it is too late for him, after the award has been made, and on the application to file the award, to insist on this objection to the filing of the award.