JUDGMENT Young and King, JJ. - This is an application in revision against an order passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarnagar. The learned Judge refused to allow an objection against the award and a decree followed the award in due course. The applicant says that there was an unauthorized reference to arbitration arising out of these facts: 2. Mathura Prasad and Raghubir Singh were brothers They had partnership in a shop. Mathura Prasad brought a suit against Raghubir Singh for dissolution of the partnership and for rendition of accounts. He joined Ram Sarup the minor son of Raghubir Singh in the suit. In his plaint the Plaintiff did not allege anywhere that the minor son Ram Sarup was a partner in the firm. All he alleged was that he had an interest in his father's share in the partnership because he was a member of the joint Hindu family. The Plaintiff applied to the Court asking that Raghubir Singh the father should be appointed guardian-ad-item to the infant son. The father refused to be guardian and subsequently on the application of the Plaintiff the mother was appointed guardian. The mother did not file a written statement on behalf of the infant son, took no interest in the case whatever, being no doubt satisfied that the minor's interest would be well guarded by Defendant No. 1, Raghubir Singh. The Munsif decreed the suit and passed a preliminary decree dissolving the partnership. The question of rendition of accounts was left until the final decree. The guardian of the minor did not appeal but Defendant No. 1, the father did. In the course of the appeal the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, agreed to submit their dispute to the arbitration of a vakil, whom the Judge describes as of great experience, and well-versed in accounts. This vakil, the Judge further says took great pains and gave an elaborate judgment after going thoroughly into the accounts. He decided that the Plaintiffs were entitled to receive from the Defendants the sum of Rs. 6,874. At this stage the guardian of the minor woke up but only when it was discovered that the arbitration had gone against her husband, the father of the minor. She lodged an objection to the award and asked that it be set aside on the ground that under Article 1, Schedule II, Code of Civil Procedure. 6,874. At this stage the guardian of the minor woke up but only when it was discovered that the arbitration had gone against her husband, the father of the minor. She lodged an objection to the award and asked that it be set aside on the ground that under Article 1, Schedule II, Code of Civil Procedure. all the parties interested had not agreed that the matter be referred to arbitration. 3. The Counsel for the applicant has dealt thoroughly with the law point as to whether under the circumstances of this case, the minor son could be a party interested within the meaning of Article 1, Schedule II, Code of Civil Procedure. We do not think however that it is necessary to decide the law point. Section 115 Code of CPC does not make it incumbent upon the Court to decide the matter according to law. We have to see whether there are any merits in the application and whether we would be doing justice by assenting to legal technicalities. We are satisfied in this case that justice has been done by the decision of the lower Court. We are satisfied that the father and the mother and everyone concerned were perfectly satisfied with the action of the father until the judgment of the arbitrator went against him. We are further satisfied that the judgment of the arbitrator did justice between the parties. In these circumstances, we refuse to entertain the application and dismiss it with costs.