JUDGMENT

M.M. DAS, J. : This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.2.1991 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Rourkela in Misc. Case No.99 of 1989 and T.S. No.36 of 1989 setting aside the award made in favour of the appellant on the ground that the Arbitrators have misconducted the proceedings as they had not attended to the question of limitation, which was brought to their notice from time to time.

2.The appellant has challenged the impugned order as perverse and not sustainable.

3.It is submitted that the award in question is a non-speaking award. The Court below held that (a) the Arbitrators had jurisdiction to pass a non-speaking award (b) the Arbitrators have considered the cases of both the parties and passed an award after taking into account the counter claim (c) the Arbitrators have delivered the award within the scope of reference.

4.Having held all the above issues in favour of the claimant, the Court below in paragraph-13 held as follows :

“............. Had a limitation prime been considered by the Arbitrators, the possibility of passing award in favour of opposite party No.1 may be remote and this possibility is not ruled out.”

And set aside the aw