Short Note : The, applicant is a registered partnership firm. The non-applicant is also a firm dealing in the name and style of Ramchandra Nanakram. The applicant filed the application in the trial Court under Ss. 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act on the allegations that the applicant and non-applicant are the members of Maharaja Tukoji Rao Cloth Merchants Association (hereinafter called as the Association) that the non-applicant had purchased cloth from the applicant on credit that a dispute arose between the parties with respect to the price of the cloth purchased by the non-applicant and that on 12-7-73 the applicant submitted an application to the Association to settle the dispute by arbitration. In the application the applicant had put up his claim for a sum of Rs. 793.92 p. It was further alleged that the Association gave the award on 24-12-73 to the effect that the non-applicant shall pay a sum of Rs. 821.32 p. with interest at Re.1 per cent per month from 13-7-73 till its realization by the applicant. The amount under the award was to be paid within one month from the date of the award. The said award was made between the applicant and three persons including the non-applicant but the applicant filed the application for a decree on the basis of the award only against the non-applicant, on the ground that the suit transaction had taken place with him alone. In the application the applicant claimed Rs. 870.50 inclusive of interest. 2. The suit was resisted by the non-applicant inter alia on the grounds that the non-applicant never dealt in the name of Ramchandra Nanakram that it did not enter into any cloth transaction with the applicant, that it was not the member of the Association that the non-applicant did not agree to settle the dispute through the Association by arbitration and that it was not bound by any award of the Association. It was further averred that in the arbitration proceedings three persons; M/s Ramchandra Nanakram, Ramchandra Hansraj and Teerathdas were made parties but the suit under Ss. 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act having been filed only against the non-applicant, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The non-applicant also pleaded that the applicant had no authority to file the award in the Court under Ss. 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act having been filed only against the non-applicant, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The non-applicant also pleaded that the applicant had no authority to file the award in the Court under Ss. 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act and that the suit was liable to be dismissed. 3. On the aforesaid pleadings the trial Court framed issues, out of which four issues were treated as preliminary issues and in view of the findings given by the Court, on all these issues the applicant's suit under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act was dismissed, vide order passed on 1-9-75. Against that order the applicant has come to this Court in revision. Held : In this revision the main question for consideration is whether the applicant had the authority of the Arbitrator to file the award in the Court. According to sub-section (2) of S.14 of the Arbitration Act an award has to be filed in the Court only by the Arbitrator and not by any party. It is not necessary that the Arbitrator should take the award to the Court for filing it there. In case somebody files an award he must have the authority to do so on behalf of the Arbitrator. In the instant case, the applicant in his applications under Ss. 14 & 17 of the Arbitration Act has not pleaded that he has filed the award on the authority of the Arbitrator. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decision in Hazi Rahmetulla v. Chaudhari Vidya Bhushan, AIR 1963 All. 602 in which while distinguishing the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumbha Mawji v. Dominion of India, AIR 1953 SC 313 held that it is not essential for the party filing the award to allege specifically that it was filing the award under the authority of the arbitrator; nor it is necessary for the Court to enable it to act on the award that it should specifically hold that the award had been filed under the authority of the arbitrator. 4. 4. The Allahabad High Court in Hazi Rahmetulla v. Chaudhary Vidya Bhushan (supra) tried to distinguish the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumbha Mawji v. Dominion of India on the ground that in the case which was before the Allahabad High Court the original award was filed by the party along with the record of all the proceedings taken before the Arbitrators and the other party never took any objection to the competency of Rahmetulla to file the award in the Court. Therefore in that case no question was raised as to there being any want of authority in filing the award by the party. In that case the Arbitrators were also examined and it was never suggested to them that the party filing the award had surreptitiously filed it in the Court without their specific authority. It is not necessary for me to express any opinion as to whether the Allahabad High Court in view of the particular facts of the case in Hazi Rahmetulla v. Chaudhary Vidya Bhushan (supra) justified in distinguishing the Supreme Court decision in Kumbhaji Mawji v. The Dominion of India (supra). To my mind the dictum of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kumbhaji Mawji's case, lays down the general principle of law and in the absence of any specific pleadings and proof it cannot be presumed that a party filing the award did so on the authority of the arbitrator. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Kashi Prasad Jhajharia v. State of M.P., 1973 MPLJ Short Note 1 relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumbhaji Mawji v. The Dominion of India (supra) has clearly held that the arbitrator himself or a person specifically authorised can file the award; that the authority must be specific and that the award or its copy filed without specific authority cannot be acted upon and no decree can be passed on it. 6. It is thus clear that the applicant was not competent to file the award in the trial Court along with the application under Ss. 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act without any specific authority from the Arbitrator. As already stated above, the applicant has neither pleaded nor there is any prima facie evidence on record to prove that the applicant had the authority of the arbitrator to file the award in the Court. 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act without any specific authority from the Arbitrator. As already stated above, the applicant has neither pleaded nor there is any prima facie evidence on record to prove that the applicant had the authority of the arbitrator to file the award in the Court. Therefore, the trial Court was right in holding that in the absence of any authority of the arbitrator to file the award, the applicant had no legal right to file the application under Ss. 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act. There is, therefore, no ground to make any interference by this Court in revision in the said finding of the Court below. Revision dismissed.