V.K.Jain, J.

This is an Appeal against order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.01.2009 whereby objections filed by Appellant, to execution of decree dated 12.10.2007 have been dismissed.

2. Certain disputes, that he arisen between the parties, were referred for arbitration to Shri N.H. Chandwani, who at that time was working as Arbitrator in the Ministry of Urban Development. Pursuant to repatriation of Shri Chandwani to his parent department, he was relieved of his duties with effect from the afternoon of 30.11.1990 vide office order No. 15011/2/85-UD-I dated 29th November, 1990. The office order also stipulated that in respect of Arbitration Cases which had been heard and were ripe for giving award, Shri Chandwani should give award within 10 days. The award in this case was made by Shri Chandwani on 11th December, 1990. The respondent filed petition under Sections 14 and 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940, for making the award Rule of the Court. The appellant filed objections to the award under Sections 30 and 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940. The objections were allowed and the award was set aside by Additional District Judge, vide his judgment dated 9.9.91. The respondent preferred appeal against the judgment passed by the Addl. District Judge. The appeal filed by respondent being FAO No. 251/91 was allowed and the award was made Rule of the Court on 12th October, 2007. On execution being filed by respondent, the appellant filed objections under Section 47 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, claiming that the award and decree passed thereupon were null and void as the award was passed 11 days after the Arbitrator had relinquished the office. The objections having been dismissed, the appellant has come by way of this appeal against the order of Ld. Single Judge.

3. It was not disputed before us that Shri N.H. Chandwani who was on deputation in Ministry of Urban Development, was repatriated vide office order no. 15011/2/89-UD-I dated 5th November, 1990 and pursuant thereto he was relieved with effect from afternoon of 30.11.1990 vide an office order of even number dated 29.11.1990.

4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the Arbitrator was not competent to pass the award after he was relieved in the afternoon of 30.11.90. As regards 10 days time given to the Arbitrator to give award in the arbitration cases which had already been heard by him, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since 10 days time was given from the date of office order, the award having been delivered on 11.12.90 was without jurisdiction.

Per Contra, the respondent through Mr. Phool Chand Aggarwal, Sole proprietor of the respondent firm submitted that since the parties had, by mutual consent, extended the time for making the award up to 31.3.91, as is recorded in the award, the Arbitrator had the jurisdiction to make the ward on 11th December, 1990.

5. In Union of India v. M/s. Jagat Ram Trehan & Sons, 61 (1996) Delhi Law Times 779, which is a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this court, the very same Arbitrator, Shri Chandwani passed the award on 5th December, 1990. During execution proceedings, objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure were filed by Union of India for declaring the decree as null and void, on the ground that the award had been passed after Mr. Chandwani had already relinquished his office as Arbitrator. After noting that Mr. Chandwani was stated to have passed more than 60 awards after 30.11.1990, the date on which he ceased to be an Arbitrator, the Division Bench held that upon relinquishment of the office on 30.11.1990, as Arbitrator, Mr. Chandwani could not have passed any award, as he did on 5.12.1990. It was held that the award was null and void as Mr. Chandwani lacked inherent jurisdiction.

6. An appeal was filed by the Decree Holder, against the above referred judgment of the Division Bench. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme