Judgement JUDGMENT :- This revn petn is filed by the defts against the order of the Dist Munsif of Mannargudi accepting the award passed by an arbitrator in O. S. No. 177 of 1947 and giving a decree in terms of it in the following circumstances. A suit was filed by the pltfs for recovery of possession of properties alleging that they acquired title to two-thirds shares in the paint house under two sale deeds, Exs. A. 5 and A. 6 dated 5-6-1912 and a settlement deed Ex. A. 10 dated 10-1-1947 respectively. The suit was contested by the defts on the grounds covered by the various issues raised in the suit. 2. While the trial of the suit was proceeding, the parties agreed to refer the matter to the arbitration of one Mohamed Abu Bucker, and a memorandum of agreement was filed into Ct setting out the terms of the reference to arbitration. The arbitrator filed his award on 19-11-1948. The learned Dist Munsif without giving any time to the parties concerned passed a decree observing that it was conceded that no question of any time for objections to the award, as in a case of reference through Ct, arose and that no time for objections was asked for. Against this order of the trial Ct accepting the award on the basis of which a decree mas passed the present civil revn petn is filed. 3. It is contended in this civil revn petn that the order of the learned Dist Munsif accepting the award without allowing the necessary time for the Sling of objection is illegal and is opposed to the plain wording of S. 17, Arbitration Act. 3. It is contended in this civil revn petn that the order of the learned Dist Munsif accepting the award without allowing the necessary time for the Sling of objection is illegal and is opposed to the plain wording of S. 17, Arbitration Act. Section 17 provides that: "Where the court sees no cause to remit the award of any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award, the court, shall, after the time for making an application to set aside the award has expired, or such application having been made after refusing it, proceed to pronounce Judgment according to the award, and upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow, and no appeal shall lie from such decree except on the ground that it is in excess of, or not otherwise in accordance with, the award." It is clear from a perusal of this section that a Ct can pass a decree on the award only after the expiry of time to file objections to award. The time provided in Art. 158, Limitation Act, for objections to the award is 30 days from the date of notice of the filing of the award, irrespective of the fact whether the parties applied for time or not. It was also urged before me that there was no question of the parties applying for time, as the Ct took up the matter on the very date on which the award was filed and disposed it of immediately and the parties had no time even to apply for time to file objections to the award. Whether the parties applied for time or not, it is the duty cast upon the Ct to allow 30 days time to lapse between the filing of the award and the passing of the decree on the basis of the award On the face of it, the decree passed by the learned Dist Munsif without allowing the requisite time to lapse as required under the provisions of S. 17, Arbitration Act, read with Art 158, Limitation Act, is illegal and unsustainable. I therefore set aside the decree of the trial Ct and direct it to issue the necessary notices to the parties concerned and give them sufficient time to file objections to the award and dispose of the suit according to law. 4. I therefore set aside the decree of the trial Ct and direct it to issue the necessary notices to the parties concerned and give them sufficient time to file objections to the award and dispose of the suit according to law. 4. The civil revn petn is therefore allowed, but in the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. Revision allowed.