JUDGMENT C.B. Agarwala, J. - This is a Plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for rendition of accounts. The suit was filed on the allegations that the Defendants and the Plaintiff carried on business at Bijnor in partnership, that the Plaintiff's share was three annas in a rupee, while the share of each of the Defendants was 61/4 annas, that the Defendants were to maintain accounts and to carry on the work of partnership. 2. Defendants 1 and 2 denied that there was any partnership between them and the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 3 admitted the partnership, but alleged that the shares of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 3 were eight annas each in a rupee. He did not admit that any amount was due from him. There was also a difference as to the amount contributed to the partnership business. 3. After issues in the case, the parties agreed to refer the suit to the arbitration of one Sri Fateh Chand, Secretary, District Board, Bijnor. The arbitrator was empowered by the parties to decide the points in dispute and award costs of the suit after open or secret enquiries, or without making any enquiries or on the basis of his personal knowledge and that whatever award was given by him would be accepted by the parties without objection. 4. Fateh Chand entered upon his duties as an arbitrator and give an award. He found that the Defendants 1 and 2 were not partners at all that the share of the Plaintiff was one-third and that of the Defendant No. 3 was two-thirds, that Defendant Rajendra Kumar was liable to maintain accounts and render them to the Plaintiff, that were heavy losses in the business, viz., to the extent of Rs. 18, 197/10/ -, that the Plaintiff had advanced Rs. 6,300/ - only and that the remaining amount had been invested by the Defendant. He, therefore, held that the Plaintiff was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 234/5/ - from the Defendant No. 3. The costs were directed by him to, be borne by the parties. 5. The Plaintiff objected to the award on the ground that the award was illegal, and that the proceedings had been misdirected because the arbitrator, had taken into account some hush money, which had been paid by the Defendant. 234/5/ - from the Defendant No. 3. The costs were directed by him to, be borne by the parties. 5. The Plaintiff objected to the award on the ground that the award was illegal, and that the proceedings had been misdirected because the arbitrator, had taken into account some hush money, which had been paid by the Defendant. The court below dismissed, the objections and upheld the award and passed a decree in terms of the award. The Plaintiff has now filed this appeal from that order to, this Court. 6. It has been urged on his Behalf that the arbitrator could not have taken into consideration the amount paid by the Defendant as hush money, and reliance has been placed upon the case of this Court Pearey Lal v. Mahesh Chandra 1934 A.W.R. p. 415, reported in. In my opinion, there is no force in this contention. It will be observed that the arbitrator was given very wide powers. He was to decide in any way he liked, whether without enquiry or after enquiry, whether the enquiry was open, or secret. He might also decide on his personal knowledge. The arbitrator considered that the accounts were correct and that in fact a loss of Rs. 18, 197/10/- was incurred. It may be that a part of the amount which was spent by the Defendant consisted of payments made in black-market or by way of hush money. But the arbitrator having been allowed absolute freedom in making his award could take into account items actually spent. His award cannot be set aside or interfered with on the ground that the items objected to could not have been taken into consideration by him. This is not a case of an ordinary arbitration in which the arbitrator is expected to follow a regular procedure. The ruling on which reliance has been placed by learned Counsel was on different facts altogether. In that case the suit was for recovery of money consisting of a share received by way of bribes extorted from the public. An arbitrator was appointed in that case and he granted a decree in favour of the Plaintiff including amounts received as bribes. In that case the parties had admitted that the amount which the arbitrator found due consisted of bribes. An arbitrator was appointed in that case and he granted a decree in favour of the Plaintiff including amounts received as bribes. In that case the parties had admitted that the amount which the arbitrator found due consisted of bribes. It was held that the court could not be a party in enforcing a claim which had its origin in a disgraceful cause. Ex turpi cause non oritur actio. In the present case the decree awarded by the arbitrator in favour of the Plaintiff does not consist of any amount taken as bribe. What the arbitrator has done is that he has accepted the amount of the Defendant as correctly showing the amount spent by him in the business. ln giving effect to the award of the arbitrator and passing a decree in terms thereof the court below was not a party to the enforcement of any claim which had its origin in a disgraceful cause. It should also be noted that the arbitrator did not possess such wide powers of decision in the case quoted above as he possessed in the present case. For both these reasons the ruling on which reliance has been placed does not apply to the facts of the present case. 7. There is no force in this appeal, and I dismiss it under Order 41, Rule 11 C.P.C.