Revisional jurisdiction after an arbitration appeal remains available where no express bar exists and the local rule fits limited supervisory review.

Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 bars a second appeal from an appellate order, but it does not expressly exclude revisional jurisdiction. The appellate authority acting under the local Khasi and Jaintia Hills Rules was treated as a civil court subordinate to the High Court, so Rule 36A could be read consistently with the limited supervisory scope of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The absence of a second appeal did not eliminate revision, and the local rule could not expand jurisdiction beyond the statutory scheme. The revision petition was therefore maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a revision petition was maintainable before the High Court against an appellate order passed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, under Rule 36A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937.

Analysis: Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 expressly bars a second appeal from an appellate order passed under that section, but it does not contain any express prohibition against revisional jurisdiction. The appellate authority under the local Rules exercised judicial powers as a civil court subordinate to the High Court, and the revision under Rule 36A was to be read consistently with the limited revisional scope recognised under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The absence of a second appeal did not extinguish supervisory revision, and the special local rule could not confer a wider or inconsistent jurisdiction contrary to the scheme of the Arbitration Act.

Conclusion: The revision petition was maintainable, and the High Court's decision upholding maintainability was correct. The appeal failed.

---