JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J. - This appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (''the Act'') is directed against the order dated 02.08.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur Metro (''the lower court''), whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act has been rejected.

2. On a dispute arising between the parties, on an application filed by M/s. Jodhpur Computer Services and Smt. Anita Chowdhary against Sushil Choudhary and Ms. Sanjana Purohit under Section 11(5) of the Act, the High Court by its order dated 23.07.2004 appointed arbitrator indicating that the matter concerns accounts of the partnership firm M/s. Jodhpur Computer Services and that all objections as to the claim, jurisdiction shall be raised before the arbitrator. The claimant-Smt. Anita Chowdhary filed her claim before the sole arbitrator.

3. The claim was contested by the appellant on several grounds. Preliminary objections were raised, which were rejected by the arbitrator, where-after points for determination were framed, parties led evidence and the arbitrator after hearing the parties, concluded the hearing on 11.01.2009 and fixed 14.02.2009 for passing of the award. On 14.02.2009, it was indicated by the arbitrator that on 01.02.2009, he was informed by claimant that she wanted to file certain certified copies and, therefore, the award was not prepared. The claimant filed certain documents along-with application; the application was contested by the appellant; on 22.03.2009, the application was allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The appellant (herein) was granted permission to file documents in rebuttal. Ultimately the final arguments were heard on 10.05.2009 and the award was passed on 24.05.2009.

4. The learned arbitrator came to the conclusion that in absence of account-books, the claim based on the balance-sheet was not justified and, thereafter went on to pass the following award:-

5. The sum of Rs. 5,54,355/- awarded pertained to Rs. 2,44,000/- towards Akhaliya Chauraha Extension Centre, Rs. 2,64,439/- towards Ratanada Extension Centre, Rs. 15,000/- towards Motor Cycle, Rs. 23,500/- towards security deposit and Rs. 7,416/-towards telephone charges.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed application under Section 34 of the Act. Alongwith the application, certain documents were also filed.

7. The lower court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that on the grounds raised by the appellant, the award did not require any interference and, consequently, rejected the application.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that both the arbitrator as well as the lower court committed grave error in passing the award and rejecting the application filed by the appellant respectively. It was submitted that the arbitrator was appointed in respect of the accounts of the firm, specific reliefs were claimed in the claim raised before the arbitrator, to which, a response was filed and evidence was led by the parties. Where-after, though the claim as raised was rejected by the arbitrator, however, based on the documents, which were filed after the arguments were concluded and the award was reserved, the present award for a sum of Rs. 5,54,355/- has been passed, which is beyond the scope of the claim made by the respondent. Further submissions were made that once the final arguments were concluded and award was reserved, as there is no hiatus between reserving the award and its pronouncement, the oral prayer made on telephone by the claimant, could not have been entertained by the arbitrator, defer passing of the award and permit filing of certain documents, which documents have formed the basis for passing of the award. It was submitted that the award is beyond the scope of the submission to the arbitration and, therefore, the same was liable to be set aside.

9. Further submissions were made that once the arbitrator passed the award based on documents, which w