( 1 ) BY judgment dated July 27, 1990 passed in Suit No. 2346/97 and I. A. 1675/88 and Suit No. 287-A/88 this Court had set aside the award dated 12th October, 1987 passed by the Arbitrator in so far as the same related to additional items (c) to (g), (i), (j), (l) and (m) of Claim No. 2 as well as Claim No. 6 and remitted the same to the Arbitrator for reconsideration and to make an award in respect thereof with reasons within four months. This portion of the award was set aside on the ground that no reasons whatsoever had been given by the Arbitrator on the said claims. The Arbitrator has now given reasons in respect of additional items (c) to (g), (i), (j), (l) and (m) of Claim No. 2 and Claim No. 6. After the said reasons were filed in Court, the respondent has once again filed objections to the Award which have been registered as I. A. No. 9601 of 1991. There was some delay in filing the objections and the Court, therefore, framed the following issues : 1. Do 2. If Issue No. 1 is found in favour of the respondents is the award dated 13. 2. 1991 liable to be set aside on the grounds taken in the objection petition being I. A. No. 9601/91? 3. Relief. By order dated August 19, 1996 the Court condoned the delay in filing the objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act and presently Issues 2 and 3 remain to be decided by this Court.

( 2 ) THE respondent has not objected to the award in respect of Claim No. 2 (g ). With a view to appreciate the objections of the respondent it will be proper to deal with each item of the claim. Item No. (c)

( 3 ) THIS claim related to the award for extra item for plastering external walls of height beyond 10 metres. The Arbitrator while deciding this claim has held that in terms of CPWD Specification 1977 Vol. I page 327 external plastering at height of over 10 metres is to be measured separately. For this extra plastering at a height of over 10 metres the contractor is entitled to an extra rate of Rs. 1. 28 per sq. mtr. in terms of the Delhi Schedule of Rates, 1974 Item 66 page 127 including enhancement under Clause 12. The Arbitrator, therefore, held that as the quantity of work above the height of 10 metre was 12260 sq. m. as reported by the Executive Engineer the claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 15,693. 00

( 4 ) MR. Sharma on behalf of D. D. A. has objected to the award of this amount and the reasons given by the Arbitrator. It is contended by Mr. Sharma that under Clause 3. 15 of the Specifications and Conditions of the Contract the rates quoted by the contractor were to hold for work at all heights and depths and that the contractor was not to be paid anything extra for maintaining in good condition all the work executed till completion of the entire work. It is, therefore, the contention of Mr. Sharma that as rates quoted by the contractor were to hold for work at all heights and depth the petitioner was not entitled to the extra rate for having done plastering above the height of 10 metres. In my view, the contention of Mr. Sharma is wholly fallacious. Under Clause 3. 1. 1 of the agreement, C. P. W. D. Specification for the works at Delhi Vol. I and Vol. II 1977 with correction slips upto the date of receipt of tender were applicable for execution of the work. In view of this clause in the Specifications and Conditions, in my view, the petitioner was entitled to extra rates for having worked above 10 metres height. Clause 3. 15 is not applicable to the present case. Moreover, after the Arbitrator has given reasons for the petitioner to be entitled to the award of the said amount, in my view, this Court will not sit as a Court of appeal over the conclusions of the Arbitrator by re-examining and reappraising the evidence considered by the Arbitrator. In my view, therefore, no case has been made out for setting aside the award in respect of this item. Item No. (d) and (e)

( 5 ) THE objection of Mr. Sharma to the award under these items is that the work " M