Dayal, J.

1. This appeal is under Sec.39, Arbitration Act, 1940 , by the plaintiff.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are these: The plaintiff entered into a contract (vide Ext. 6) with the Government of India for strengthening taxitracks and approaches at job No. 170, Bihta Aerodrome. The estimated cost of the work was nearly Rs. 6,64,765. The entire work could not be done and the plaintiff submitted a claim, amounting to Rs. 90,508 on 20th April, 1945 (Ext. 5).

The claim was not accepted and the matter was therefore referred to arbitration. Mr. Sethi, Superintending Engineer of Delhi Aviation Circle was the sole arbitrator. The plaintiff alleged that the award given by the arbitrator had not been filed in Court nor had it been made a rule of the Court. The plaintiff, therefore, applied under Sec.33 of the Arbitration Act before the Subordinate Judge First Court, Patna, and prayed for the following reliefs: "* * * .

(a) The award dated 27-6-1947 be set aside.

(b) The arbitrator be removed.

(c) That a new and independent arbitrator should be appointed to decide the difference between the parties.

(d) Costs of this petition be awarded to the petitione