Bennet, J.This is an execution second appeal on behalf of one Bachan Lal against orders in execution of the two lower Courts dismissing his application to set aside arbitration proceedings. There was a decree obtained by Chheda Lal against Amar Singh, etc. Seven persons applied to put this decree into execution as legal representatives of Chheda Lal deceased and proceedings in execution began. The judgment-debtors of that decree objected and on 29th November 1932, both parties made an agreement that the objection should be referred to arbitration. The 10th January 1933 was fixed for filing the award and the award was filed on that date, and 23rd January, was fixed for orders. Meanwhile on 3rd January 1933, Bachan Lal, the present appellant, filed a suit on the promissory note against the legal representatives of Chheda Lal deceased naming the same seven persons and one other. On 7th January 1933, Bachan Lal made an application for attachment before judgment of the decree of Chheda Lal against Amar Singh, etc., and this decree was attached on 9th January 1933, i.e., one day before the award was filed. After the filing of the award Bachan Lal made an objection including the arbitration proceedings and the award. Both the lower Courts have held that Bachan Lal toad no locus standi to impeach the award as he was not a party to the case which was referred to arbitration.

2. Now, as regards the position of Bachan Lal it appears to me that under Order 21, Rule 53(3), Bachan Lal must be deemed to be the representative of the holders of the attached decree. As he is the representative of the holders of the attached decree in my opinion he is a person entitled to make an objection in the execution proceedings of that decree. The objection which he makes is that he impugns the arbitration proceedings and the award. Learned Counsel points out that Schedule 2, Civil P.C., in Rule 1 lays down that all the parties interested in a suit may agree to a reference to arbitration. An execution proceeding is not a suit and therefore Schedule 2 does not entitle the parties to an execution proceeding to file an application for a reference to arbitration. This has been held in T. Wang v. Sona Wangdi 1925 Cal. 812. It appears therefore that the arbitration proceedings are invalid, and as held in that ruling the Court is not entitled to enforce these arbitration proceedings. I consider that Bachan Lal is a person who has attached the decree in question and is therefore entitled to have the arbitration proceedings set aside. Accordingly I allow this appeal with costs in all Courts and I hold that the arbitration proceedings are invalid and that Bachan Lal is entitled to proceed with the execution of the decree of Chheda Lal deceased against Amar Singh and others.