Short Note : 1. Plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for specific performance of a contract against the defendant appellant. The defendant appellant contested the maintainability of the suit by virtue of sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. Held : It is beyond controversy that the written agreement cont1ined in Ex. D-4 and D-5, executed by the parties, referring their dispute to the arbitrators, was in respect of the transaction made between them on 5-1-1955 vide the document (Ex P-2) and it was this dispute which ended with the award (Ex. D-10) dated 28-11-1960, made by the arbitrators which was signed by both the parties obviously in token of their acceptance. Admittedly, this suit is for specific performance of the agreement dated 5-1-1955 contained in the document (Ex. P-2). There can, thus, be no doubt that the subject-matter of the dispute referred to the arbitrators was the same as the subject-matter of the present suit. Simply because the relief claimed in the present suit is one of specific performance that does not alter the cause of action so as to circumvent the bar contained in section 32 of the Arbitration Act. The obvious test is whether any cause of action survived to the plaintiff as a result of the settlement of the dispute by the award (Ex D-10). The answer obviously must be in the negative. In such a situation, there can be no doubt that the present suit is not maintainable being barred under S. 32 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Bhagirathi v. Kriparam, Civil Revision No. 290 of 1973; decided on 10-9-1976; Union of India v. Shri Om Prakash, AIR 1976 SC 1745 . Suit dismissed. Appeal allowed.