( 1 ) THE petitioner contractor has filed this petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act requiring respondent No. 2, arbitrator, to file the award and the depositions made by the parties before him in this court for further proceedings at required by law.

( 2 ). In compliance with the notice issued by this court in this petition, the arbitrator respondent No. 2, had filed the award and the depositions in this court. After the filing of the award in court notice of the filing of the award was served on the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act read with Section 41 of Indian Arbitration Act on behalf of respondent No. 1 (I. A. 157/87) along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 41 of the Arbitration Act for condonation of delay (IA 158/87) in filing IA 157/87 were filed. IA 158/87 was allowed by this court on 29th September, 1988 and the objections were taken on record. No objections have been filed within the statutory period on behalf of the petitioner.

( 3 ). The necessary facts in filing this suit and I A 157/87 are : The petitioner was given the work of increasing the capacity Najafgarh Drain from R. D. 58. 000 to R. D. 50,000 vide agreement No. 7/ndd-1/80-81 for an amount of Rs. 27,41,393. 00 at the quoted rate of the petitioner of Rs. 27,41,393. 00 at the quoted rate of the petitioner of Rs. 6. 39 per cubic metres. During the currency of the work some additional work was got to be executed by call of fresh tenders. The petitioner approached the department and showed his willingness to execute the additional work also on the terms and conditions as contained in the agreement No. 7/ndd-1/80-81 and in May, 1981. He gave an undertaking and requested the department that the additional work may also be given to him at the already quoted rate of the 6. 39 per cubic metre for the additional quantity of 2-9-1887 cubic metres of earth work. A copy of the undertaking has been annexed as annexure R A to the affidavit in the form of evidence of Shri P. C. Goha, Executive Engineer dated 30th November, 1988. Some disputes arose over the contract tor increasing capacity of Drain from RD 58,000 to RD 50,000 and the matter was referred to the sole arbitration of Shri M. S Hussain, Director (UT) C. W. C to adjudicate the disputes. In fact the sole arbitrator was appointed by Shri O. P. Kumra, Chief Engineer (I and F, Delhi Administration. I S. B. T. Buildings. Kashmere Gate, New Delhi vide letter No. CEF/arb 94/85/4837 dated 14th May, 1985. The arbitrator after visiting the site with the parties, and having read and considered the pleadings and documents filed by the parties, evidence adduced, and considered and weighed the arguments advanced by the parlies and their counsel made the award on 25th August, 1986. The arbitrator found that the work executed at site for disposal of excavated earth was not according to the designed section of the agreement and, therefore, he allowed the claim of the claimant of Rs. 1,97,580. 52 as extra payment for extra lead only and the claim of extra lift was rejected as he was of opinion that no extra lift was involved. He also awarded interest to the claimant @ 10% p. a. on the awarded sum of Rs. 1,97,580 52 with effect from 25th August, 1986 to the date ot the payment of decree whichever is earlier.

( 4 ). As mentioned above, the respondent No. I, has filed objections (IA 157/87) to this award dated 24th August, 1986 on the grounds, inter alia that the department entrusted this additional work on the undertaking given by the petitioner that he would not charge any extra rate for the quantity beyond his agreement, further he would not claim any extra rate on the quantity excess over deviation limit of 50% and further he would not go into arbitration on these accounts. Respondent No. I has further relied on a provision of agreement. He relied on Chapter 4 page 89 of the agreement under the heading