JUDGMENT S. Awasthy, J. - This appeal has been preferred under section 39 of the Arbitration Act against the order dated 26-7-1979 passed in Civil Suit No. 125-A/78 of the Court of Fourth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, rejecting the application u/s. 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act, for making the award dated 21-5-1977 a rule of the Court. The appellant defendant No. 1 is an exhibitor of films at Jabalpur. The defendant No. 2 respondent No. 1 is a distributor having his office at Sitabuldi Nagpur. The respondent No. 2 plaintiff is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. The appellant entered into an agreement with respondent No. 2 at Jabalpur for exhibiting the picture "Jiwan Rekha" and paid Rs. 5,000/- as advance on 23-2-1977. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the respondent No. 1 against the delivery of the printson 23-2-1977. The appellant exhibited the film from 24-3-1977. It is alleged that Rs. 6,250/- were collected by 21 shows of the said film. After adjustment of the collections, there was a deficit of Rs. 478.25. There was a debit balance of Rs. 5478.25 against the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 did not pay the amount. Hence the matter was referred to respondent No. 2 for arbitration. After hearing both the parties, an award was delivered in favour of the appellant. A notice was issued to both the parties for filing the award. The respondent No. 2 thereafter filed an application u/s. 14 of the Arbitration Act for making the said award a rule of the Court. The Court rejected the application. Hence this appeal. The trial Court held that in Chapter X section 66(iii) of the Central Circuit Cine Association Rules, it is provided that the award holder may take recourse to law for the satisfaction of the award. But the rules are self-contained and they provide the penalty in case the award is not satisfied. Therefore, the civil Court will have no jurisdiction to pass a decree of such an award. It is also mentioned that the plaintiff cannot be said to be an arbitrator as under the rules, the arbitrator cannot be removed by any of the parties. Thirdly, it is stated that the award was not written on a stamp paper. Moreover, the procedure for filing an appeal and revision is also provided in the said rules. It is also mentioned that the plaintiff cannot be said to be an arbitrator as under the rules, the arbitrator cannot be removed by any of the parties. Thirdly, it is stated that the award was not written on a stamp paper. Moreover, the procedure for filing an appeal and revision is also provided in the said rules. These were the reasons for holding the application untenable. It is well settled that right of the Court cannot be taken away by any agreement between the parties. The procedure as laid down in the Arbitration Act has to be followed. Since the award was given and an application was filed u/s. 14 of the Arbitration Act to make it a rule of the Court, the trial Court should have proceeded on merits of the application and should have decided the case on its merits. The grounds for rejecting the application are not according to law. The order dated 26-7-1979 is, therefore set aside and the case is remitted to the trial Court for proceeding with the trial of the case on merits. The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs. Appeal allowed.