GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J.

Shyampati Devi, wife of Janak Prasad, the sole respondent herein entered into an agreement with Sahara India Limited, the sole appellant herein on 18.7.1986 under the terms and conditions of the scheme of the Company known as "golden key account" and was allotted account no. H-40022. Her husband was the nominee. She died on 26.8.1986. Her husband Janak Prasad applied for death help as per clause 13 of the terms and conditions of the Company's scheme whereby he as nominee of the deceased was entitled to get interest free loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the Company to be returned in installments, which was rejected.

2. As per Clause 14 of the terms and conditions aforesaid any dispute arising between the parties was to be decided through arbitrator. The dispute was, accordingly, referred to the sole arbitrator, appointed by the Company, who submitted his award on 16.9.1991, observing that claim of the deceased nominee was not legal and he was not entitled to get benefit of death help loan.

3. The arbitrator filed award in the court of Subordinate Judge, Patna. The said court having no territorial jurisdiction in the matter, by order dated 19.12.1992 asked the arbitrator to file the award in the court of Subordinate Judge, Bettiah. Thereafter the award was filed there to make it rule of the court and it was registered as Title Suit No. 43 of 1993. By order dated 29.5.1993, Bettiah court issued notice to Janak Prasad to file objection, if any, by 25.6.1993. He appeared on 25.6.1993 and filed a petition for time to file objection. On other two dates i.e., 6.7.1993 and 21.7.93 also prayer was made to grant time to file objection, ultimately on 31.7.1993 objection was filed.

4. By order dated 27.9.1993, learned Subordinate Judge, Bettiah was pleased to set aside the award and directed the parties to suggest the name of arbitrator for fresh award. Newly appointed arbitrator was directed to file his award on the basis of materials and evidence available on the record, which were produced before the previous arbitrator and directed to be put up on 7.10.1993 for suggesting the name of arbitrator.

5. Appellant Company has preferred this Appeal against the said order.

6. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the court below should not have entertained the objection filed by the respondent herein for making the award rule of the Court as it was barred by time. Further the award being a non-speaking one and the mental process of arbitrator was not reflected therein, it was not necessary to re-appreciate the evidence and scope of interference was very limited. The court below could not have sat in appeal over the decision of the arbitrator to examine the correctness of award. The impugned order is, therefore, vitiated and the award may be directed to be made rule of the court.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Subodh Kumar Sinha, counsel for the respondent submitted that the award having been given after expiry of time was invalid and. therefore, was not justified in extending time for making aware. Under Section 28(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ac ') only the court could have extended time for making award.

8. It is not in dispute that hearing of the arbitration proceeding was concluded on 11.9.1991 within four months from 14.5.1991, when the arbitrator entered into the reference, i.e., within time. On the said date as the order-sheet indicated that with consent of both parties the time limit of the proceeding was extended by the arbitrator by two weeks.

9. An occasion for the arbitrator to enlarge the time occurred only after he was called upon to proceed with the arbitration or he entered upon the reference. In my opinion, if the parties agreed to the enlargement of time after the arbitrator had entered on the reference, he had power to enlarge it in accordance with mutual agreement or consent of the parties. In such circumstance, the arbitrator gets the juris