N.N.Tiwari,J.: This appeal is against the order passed by learned Sub-Judge st, Ranchi in Misc. Case no.1 of 1988 arising out of Arbitration Title Suit no.227 of 1987. By the said order, the appellant’s petition filed under section 30 read with section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for setting aside the arbitration award has been rejected.

2. The fact of the case, in short, is that the plaintiff-respondent was awarded contract for white washing and colour washing in Heavy Engineering Corporation ('HEC' for short) Township under the Agreement no.AM(C-(III)/5/81-82 for sector-3 of the Township for Rs.60,682.50 paise and under Agreement no.AM(C-II)/21/81-82 for sector-1 and sector-2 of the Township for Rs.62,862/-, being total value of Rs.1,23,545.25 paise. The plaintiff was given work order for commencing the work from 06.01.1982. The time for completion of the work was 06.04.1982 for colour washing and 06.07.1982 for white washing.

3. According to the plaintiff, he had completed the work within the scheduled time, but the respondent made part payment of only Rs.40,000/-out of the total value of the contract. Balance amount of Rs.83,545.26 paise is still due. Besides the said balance amount Rs.5,000/-for executing the extra work, Rs.10,000/-security money and the compensatory amount of Rs.25,000/-on account of the blockage of capital are also payable to the plaintiff. In terms of arbitration clause in the agreement and with the intervention of the Court and by judgment dated 14.02.1985 passed in Arbitration Title Suit no.56/84, the defendant-appellant nominated one of its officers Shri S.K.Jain, Deputy General Manager, as the sole Arbitrator. The dispute was referred to the said Arbitrator. The sole Arbitrator rendered its Award and submitted the same to the Court. In Arbitration Suit no.227 of 1987 notices were issued to the parties calling upon them to 2. show cause as to why award should not be made rule of the Court. The defendant-appellant filed its objection under section 30 read with section 33 of the Arbitration Act, which was registered as Misc. Case no.1 of 1988. The plaintiff-respondent filed rejoinder to the objection of the applicant-defendant.

4. The defendant-appellant in its objection challenged the Award dated 07.09.1987 mainly on the grounds that:

(I) Arbitrator has misconducted the proceeding by ignoring the material documents and arriving at inconsistent conclusion in its award.

(II) Arbitrator passed its Award by going beyond the terms of reference.

(III) The claimant had not claimed that he had completed the work. He had said that the work could not be measured as it was washed away in rains. But the Arbitrator imports its personal knowledge in holding that white washing and colour washing is perishable item and since it was done before monsoon, measurement of the work was not possible as it was washed away by rains.

(IV) The Arbitrator was given time for making award till 31.07.1987. But on 28.06.1987, the Arbitrator had applied to the court for extension of period though the Arbitrator has no authority to make such application.

(V) Interest has been awarded beyond the Arbitrator’s authority.

(VI) The claimant had not raised dispute regarding interest before the management and, as such, the dispute comes within the excepted matter as per Clause-78((1) of the General Conditions of the Contract.

5. Learned court below heard the parties on the said objection and discussed the facts and materials in detail and held that:

(a) The Arbitrator had submitted Award on 07.09.1987 within the period extended by the court. Section 28 of the Arbitration Act provides power to the court to extend time for making the Award at any stage. In the present case, the court extended time upto 30.09.1987. Therefore, the Award has been rendered within time and the ground taken by the objector-respondent-appellant is baseless and untenable.

(b) The defendant’s objection is that the sole arbitrator has committed gros