SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

(1) THIS is an application filed by the Hindustan Steelworks Construction Company Limited for filing the award of the Umpire appointed by this court, Shri Justice Jaganmohan Reddy, retired judge of this court and for passing a decree in terms of the said award. It appears that there was an agreement between Shri Rajasekhar Rao, the contractor and the Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, petitioner, in respect of certain works. Differences and disputes arose and there were proceedings before the arbitrator named in the agreement and there were certain proceedings, the details of which is not necessary to refer. As the arbitrators could not agree, there were differences. This court by an order dated 16/06/1983 directed that arbitrators appointed by each of the parties be appointed arbitrators to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. It was stipulated therein that in the said order of this court dated 16/06/1983, it would be no longer open to the party to question the validity of the appointment of the arbitrators. In the event of any disagreement between the two arbitrators, Shri Jaganmohan Reddy, a former judge of this court was directed to act as the Umpire. Further consequential directions were also given. Thereafter the parties appeared before the arbitrators and referred the matter to the Umpire. The Umpire after consideration has made the award dated 15/07/1985 which has been filed in this court and the petitioner seeks a decree in terms of the award. The respondent-contractor, Shri Rajasekhar Rao objects to the award being made a rule of the court. He states in his objections that the Umpire had made a speaking award, therefore according to his counsel the validity or otherwise of the said award was justifiable (sic justiciable) in a court of law.

(2) HE, however, firstly contends that the award was made beyond time. He further contends that the Umpire had no jurisdiction to proceed with the arbitration on or about 18/12/1984 as the period of two months from the date of his entering upon the references viz., 20/10/1984 had expired on 18/12/1984. According to the said objections, the Umpire became functus officio. It was contended that the power to extend the period of passing the award was vested in the court alone under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act and it was not permissible for the parties to extend the time. We are unable to accept this position. Mr Markandeya drew our attention to certain observations of this court in the case of State of Punjab v. Hardyal. He relied on the observations of the court at page 656 and emphasised that law precludes parties from extending time after the matter had been referred to the arbitrator; it would be a contradiction in terms to hold that the same result could be brought about by the conduct of the parties. These observations, in our opinion, are out of context. The policy of law is that the arbitration proceedings should not be unduly prolonged. The arbitrator therefore has to give the award within the time prescribed or such extended time as the court concerned may in its discretion extend and the court alone has been given the power to extend time for giving the award. The court has got the power to extend time even after the award has been given or after the expiry of the period prescribed for the award. But the court has to exercise its discretion in a judicial manner. In that case this court found that the High court was justified in taking the view that it did. This power, however, could be exercised even by the appellate court. In view of the policy of law _that the arbitration proceedings should not be unduly prolonged and in view of the fact that the parties have been taking willing part in the proceedings before the arbitrator without a demur and had all along been willing to extend time, this will be a fit case, in our opinion, for the extension of time. We accordingly extend the time for giving the .ward and th