With the consent of both sides the matter has been taken up for disposal pursuant to an earlier direction of this Court. Heard Sri A.Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned senior counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

2. Appellant in this appeal is the petitioner in A.O.P.No.35 of 2008, an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short Act) to set aside the award dated 28.08.2007 passed by the third respondent (arbitrator) against him. The Court of IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (trial court) by its order dated 31.05.2011 dismissed that AOP. Aggrieved, this appeal (CMA) under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act is filed.

3. The appellant is admittedly the vendor under the agreement of sale dated 28.06.2004 which he executed in favour of respondents 1 and 2 (referred to as purchasers). Under the said agreement, he agreed to sell a site of 4000 sq. yards out of Ac.1-00 and 453.66 sq. yards (more fully described in the schedule to the said agreement) to the purchasers. The total sale consideration mentioned in the agreement was Rs.1,35,00,000/-. The purchasers admittedly paid Rs.15,10,116/-to the appellant by the date of the agreement and agreed to pay the balance sale consideration subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. That agreement contained an arbitration clause, i.e. clause 17. The named arbitrator is one Sri K.V.Rama Murthy (for short Mr.Murthy), an advocate of Visakhapatnam and the said clause also empowered him in case he is unable to adjudicate the disputes, to appoint another in his place for that purpose. The place of arbitration is Visakhapatnam.

4. The recitals in the agreement disclose that the appellant earlier filed O.S.No.397 of 1988 before the court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, in respect of the property in question against the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority (VUDA) and Waltair Club due to some dispute. That suit was decreed. Both the defendants preferred appeals A.S.No.118 of 1998 and A.S.No.227 of 1998 before the concerned appellate court questioning the said decree. The agreement reads that irrespective of the result of the above appeals the purchasers agree to buy the property in question. The conditions relating to the period within which the balance sale consideration was to be paid varied depending upon the result of the appeals and there were also other conditions which we will refer to later. We are told that both the above appeals were dismissed and second appeals filed by the aggrieved parties are now pending in this court. All these aspects are admitted.

5. Disputes having arisen between them under the present agreement, the purchasers invoked the arbitration clause and ultimately the award dated 31.12.2005 came to be passed in their favour by the third respondent-arbitrator who was nominated by Mr.Murthy for adjudicating the dispute. Under the said award, the third respondent granted the relief of specific performance of the agreement by fixing the terms. The third respondent decided the matter on the basis of eleven (11) documents filed by the purchasers which were marked as Exs.C.1 to C.11 by him. The purchasers and the appellant did not lead any oral evidence. The appellant did not file any documents either. The appellant has a complaint that the third respondent did not give him reasonable opportunity and we will consider this aspect under the relevant point. There is no dispute as will presently be seen, about the material documents filed by the purchasers. The appellant, having been unsuccessful in challenging the award before the trial court, is now before us for the same relief.

6. Sri Ramalingeswara Rao urged several points for reversing the decision of the trial court and setting aside the award. We will refer to the said points in the course of this judgment. Sri Prakash Reddy repelled all the points and argued that the third respondent h