Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Kottayam dismissing a petition filed by the petitioner, the State of Kerala for having the award passed by the 2nd respondent filed in court and notice being given to the parties of the filing of the award. 2. A dispute between the petitioner and the 1st respondent was referred to arbitration. The 2nd respondent passed the award on 14-9-1957 and the original award and the connected papers were forwarded by him to the Government. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the award wanted to challenge the validity of the award under S.33 of the Arbitration Act, Act 10 of 1940. Therefore a petition was filed under S.14(2) of the Arbitration Act for a direction by the court to have the award filed in court. Along with the petition the award which had been sent to the Government by the 2nd respondent was also produced. 3. Notice was issued to the 2nd respondent and in response to the notice, a statement has been filed by him wherein it is stated that the award and the other connected papers had already been forwarded to the State Government, and that they may be got produced by the petitioner. The statement of the 2nd respondent would thus amount to his agreeing to have the award filed in court. The 1st respondent in his counter statement raised the objection that, in as much as, the award was not filed by the arbitrator nor shown to have been produced by the petitioner under his authority there has not been due compliance with S.14 (2) of the Act and the petition has to be dismissed. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the objection and the petition was dismissed. The revision petition is filed to set aside the order. 4. Under the Arbitration Act it is not competent to file a petition under S.33 of the Act for setting aside an award till the award has been filed in court and in cases where it is necessary to have the validity of an award determined, it is open to a party to the arbitration to proceed under S.14(2) of the Arbitration Act to have the award filed in court. S.14 (2) provides: "The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them to be filed in court and the court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award." Under this section the arbitrator or umpire can at the request of any party to the arbitration or any person claiming under such party file the award in court. It is also provided that the arbitrator shall produce the award if so directed by the court. The section does not say that a party has to make a request to the arbitrator first to cause the award to be filed in court before he makes a request to the court to direct the arbitrator to file the award. 5. This petition, therefore, should be taken to have been filed for a direction to the arbitrator to file the award. It was not the case of the petitioner that the award had already been filed and what remains to be done is only the giving of notice to the parties of the filing of the award. The petitioner had also no case that the award was made over to the Government to be filed in court or that the production of the award by him was in pursuance of any authorisation by the arbitrator. There was also no case that the mere production of the award by them amounts to 'filing'. If that were so, there would not have been any need to implead the 2nd respondent as a party to the petition and requesting the court to pass orders that the award and the connected papers be filed in court. They would have then stated that the award has been filed by them in court and that notice may be issued to the parties of the award. Mere production of the award does not amount to 'filing' of the award. They would have then stated that the award has been filed by them in court and that notice may be issued to the parties of the award. Mere production of the award does not amount to 'filing' of the award. Filing under the section has to be done either by the arbitrator or by one authorised by him. 6. This distinction has not been noticed by the learned judge, who apparently thought that the contention of the petitioner was that he is filing the award and what remains to be done is only to give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. The decision in Kumbha Mawji v. Dominion of India (AIR. 1953 SC. 313) has therefore no application to the facts of this case. The contention there was that the document was actually filed into court and in considering the question whether the mere production of the document by the party would amount to the filing of the award in court, His Lordship Jagannadha Das, J. stated: "This section [S. 14 [2]] clearly implies that where the award or a signed copy thereof is in fact filed into court by a party he should have the authority of the umpire for doing so Where, as in this case the originals are said to have been handed over by the umpire to both the parties, it cannot be assumed that the mere handing over of the awards to the parties necessarily implies the authority of the umpire to file the same into court on his behalf. That authority has to be specifically alleged and proved." It was held that in the absence of such authority the production of the award by the party cannot be said to be 'filing' as contemplated under S.14 (2). There is no such case here and the petition in substance is for an order directing the arbitrator to file the award. 7. The petitioner, no doubt, need not have produced the award along with the petition and could have waited for a direction by the court to the arbitrator to produce the award and the arbitrator formally authorising them to file it in court on his behalf. 7. The petitioner, no doubt, need not have produced the award along with the petition and could have waited for a direction by the court to the arbitrator to produce the award and the arbitrator formally authorising them to file it in court on his behalf. But even though the award was produced in court along with the petition, there is substantial compliance with the terms of the section and the court ought to have passed orders directing the arbitrator to file the award in court and since the arbitrator has agreed to the filing of the award pass formal orders that the award before the court is filed and then proceed to take the next step. We are not impressed with the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that since the award had already been produced in court, without the authority of the arbitrator the court cannot file the award and issue notice to the parties. 8. The learned judge was also wrong in having framed an issue "whether the award is liable to be set aside or modified for all or any of the reasons stated in the petition". Such an issue will not arise in this petition at all. It is only after filing of the award and notice is given to the parties that the aggrieved party can file a petition under S.33 of the Arbitration Act. Art.158 of the Limitation Act provides a period of 30 days from the date of service of the notice of the filing of the award for presentation of the petition for setting aside the award. It is not open to a party to file a petition for setting aside an award until the award has actually been filed in court; and notice thereof has been served of the filing of the award on the parties. In fact there was no prayer in the petition to set aside the award. The learned Subordinate Judge has not understood the true scope of the petition. 9. For the reasons stated above the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is set aside and the petition is remanded to the lower court for disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Allowed.