Short Note : 1. The plaintiff's firm Prahlad Bhagirath as well as the defendants firm Shrikishan Ram Gopal were the members of the Sanyogitagung Grain Merchants Association, Indore. There was a contract between the parties for the supply of an oil tank. The defendants allegedly committed the breach of the contract by not delivering the goods. By consent of the parties the quantum of damages was settled at an amount of Rs. 3,582.63 p. As the defendants failed to pay this amount, the plaintiffs applied to the Grain Merchants Association for a decision of the claim of the plaintiffs by referring the matter to arbitration in accordance with the rules of the Association. The Association gave its award against the defendants. An appeal was filed by the defendants against the said award, which was dismissed by the Appeal Committee of the said Association. The plaintiffs, thereafter, filed the suit for recovery of Rs 4,100/- on account of damages for the breach of the contract committed by the defendant firm. The question that arose for decision was whether the suit was barred under section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act. Held: Admittedly, the parties are members of the Sanyogita Gunj Grain Merchants Association When they referred their dispute to Arbitration by an Association, the rules of that Association or chamber with respect to arbitration of disputes are imported into the conduct and the parties are bound by those rules. In the present case, the parties willingly submitted their dispute to the said Association for arbitration and apparently the plaintiffs never objected to that forum, which decided the dispute and which decision was also maintained by the Appeal Committee in appeal and confirmed by the Association as such. The plaintiffs do not appear to have challenged the jurisdiction or the authority of that committee which was working under the Association and, on the contrary acquiesed in the proceedings before that committee. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs are now estopped from challenging that the committee, which gave the award, was not a validly constituted committee according to the rules of the Association. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs are now estopped from challenging that the committee, which gave the award, was not a validly constituted committee according to the rules of the Association. Even assuming that the committee was, not so authorised or was not properly and validly constituted, still, in the opinion of this Court, in these circumstances, the remedy of the plaintiffs lay in submitting an application under section 33 of the Arbitration Act, for setting aside the same or, if they wanted to aside by the said award, to file an application under section 14 of the said Act for making the award the rule of the Court, but, on the same cause of action and regarding the same matter, they could not file a separate suit. Saba and Co. v. Ishar Singh, AIR 1956 Calcutta 321, Satish Kumar v. Surinara Kumar, AIR 1970 SC 833 , Gouri Shankar v. State, AIR 1973 Patna 405, Kirna Sindhu v. Sudha Sindhu, AIR 1973 Calcutta 496, Kehar Das v. Tarak Singh, AIR 1974 Punjab and Harayana 133, Sait Pawn Das v. Manikyam Pillai, AIR 1960 A.P. 59 , referred to. Katihar Jute Mills Ltd. v. Shri. Laxminarayan Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. AIR 1958 Calcutta 501 distinguished. Suit dismissed. Revision allowed.