Dipak Misra, C.J.

The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated October 6, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Execution Petition No. 70/2003 arising out of C.S. No. 1494/1993.

2. At the very outset, we may note with profit that the present appeal was initially registered as EFA (OS) No. 23/2006 and thereafter, on 5.1.2006, recording the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the same should have been registered as an LPA, it was directed that it should be registered as an LPA. The issue of maintainability of the appeal was kept open. In the course of hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the parties fairly conceded that the appeal be decided on merits without adverting to the issue whether EFA would lie or an LPA would lie. Accordingly, we proceed to deal with the merits of the appeal keeping the issue of maintainability open.

3. The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of the appeal are that the respondent was awarded the work of supply, installation, testing and commission of electrical system at Hotel Ashok, Bhopal (MP) by the India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) vide Work Order dated 11.10.1985. As disputes arose between the parties, the matter was referred for arbitration. The learned arbitrator passed an award on 26.5.1993 and sent the proceedings to this Court which was registered as Suit No. 1494/1993. The notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties and in response to the said notice, the ITDC filed objections resisting the award in relation to the allowing of the contractor's claims 1(a) and 1(b). This Court, vide order dated 9.1.1998, upheld the award in all aspects except the award passed pertaining to claim item Nos. 1(a) and 1(b). It was held that the arbitrator had not quantified the amount awarded to the contractor in respect of claim No. 1(a) and, therefore, to that extent, the award was indefinite and incapable of execution. As regards claim No. 1(b), the contractor was awarded a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs. The learned Single Judge scanning the anatomy of Clause 18 of the agreement, which stipulated that if the amount awarded was Rs. 50,000/- or more, came to hold that the arbitrator was under obligation to give reasons, but the arbitrator had ascribed no reasons

4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the matter was remitted to the arbitrator only in respect of the aforesaid two claims.

5. After the award was passed, the appellant filed its objections but the same were rejected and the award was made Rule of Court vide order dated 27.1.2003. Thereafter, the respondent filed execution petition for execution of the award dated 10.5.1998 and in pursuance of the decree, the appellant paid the entire amount to the respondent and satisfied the decree. After the amount was paid, the respondent filed an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that at the time of preparation of the decree sheet, on account of accidental slip, certain clerical mistake had crept-in in the decree sheet and due to such a ministerial mistake, the date of filing of the award was mentioned 20th May, 1998 in place of 15th December, 1993 and, therefore, the said mistake should be rectified and he should be entitled to the interest from the first date, i.e., 15.12.1993.

6. After the remit, the learned arbitrator considered the matter and passed an award dated 10.5.1998. In the said award, the learned arbitrator quantified the amount in respect of claim No. 1(a) and also ascribed the reasons for the amount awarded under claim No. 1(b).

7. Before the learned Single Judge who was dealing with the execution case arising out of the suit, it was contended that when the suit was pending and the matter was remanded to the arbitrator in respect of a particular claim on two scores, namely, to quantify a particular claim and to ascribe the reasons on the other, the award remained alive and the order of remit does not amount to a fresh reference of di