The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount determined by the learned Appellate Court under Section 37 of the Act, 1996.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

The present civil revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC is directed against the Judgment dated 19.3.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Una, HP, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 61 of 1999, whereby learned court below partly accepted the appeal preferred by the present petitioner and held him entitled to amount of Rs. 64,074/- over and above the finally payment. Petitioner being aggrieved with the non-granting of interest, if any, on the aforesaid amount, approached this Hon’ble Court by way of present proceedings.

2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication of the present case are that petitioner was awarded contract of construction of Lift Irrigation Scheme, Santoo Tilla on the basis of agreement No.1 of 1990-91 amounting to Rs. 6,18,227/-. Since the dispute with regard to payment arose between the parties, matter was referred to arbitration in terms of the agreement. Learned Arbitrator, vide award dated 10.10.1994 (Annexure P-1) allowed the claims filed by the present petitioner and held him entitled to an amount of Rs. 78,947/-. Perusal of the award also suggests that learned Arbitrator while passing award also granted an amount of Rs. 12,582/- on account of interest for nonpayment of substitute/ extra items. Respondent-State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, filed objections under Sections 30 & 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, in the Court of learned Senior Sub-Judge Una, whereby the objections filed by the respondent-state were allowed and award was set-aside. Being aggrieved with the order of learned Sub-Judge, petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of learned District Judge, Una, whereby he partly allowed the appeal holding him entitled to an amount of Rs. 64,074/- over and above the final payment. Since, learned Court below while partly allowing the appeal, held petitioner entitled for an amount of Rs. 64,074/- over and above the final payment but failed to award any interest, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by way of Civil Revision Petition.

3. Smt. Ruma Kaushik. Advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that learned court below while partly allowing appeal, vide judgment dated 19.3.2005, has erred in not awarding the interest to the petitioner. She forcefully contended that learned court below, while passing the impugned judgment, miserably failed to take cognizance of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein it has been repeatedly held that the court has power to award interest on the awarded amount to the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner was held entitled to amount over and above the final payment, learned court below ought to have awarded interest on the awarded amount. Ms. Kaushik forcefully contended that learned Court below failed to appreciate that learned Arbitrator while passing award dated 10.10.1994 had awarded the interest of Rs. 12,582/- for nonpayment of substitute/extra items and, as such, learned court below has failed to exercise jurisdiction duly vested in him, whereby he could always grant interest on the amount awarded by him. In the aforesaid background, it is prayed that judgment passed by the court below in Civil Misc Appeal No. 61 of 1999 dated 19.3.2005 be modified and petitioner be held entitled to the interest on the amount so paid to the petitioner in terms of judgment dated 19.3.2005 as per law.

4. Per contra, Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, representing the respondent-state vehemently opposed the present petition preferred by the petitioner on the ground of jurisdiction. Mr. Chauhan, strenuously argued that this Court has no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to entertain the present petition in view of the specific remedy provided under Section 37 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Act, 1996”). It is also contended that petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable at all, especially, when rem