Mr. K.Kannan, J.: - The revision petition is against the dismissal of the execution petition filed by the claimant in enforcement of Arbitrator’s award. The award related to a contract undertaken by the claimant for laying a sewerage. The commencement of the work had been done on 16.02.1993 and the period for completion was one year. The value of the contract was Rs.105.5 lakhs which was later enhanced to Rs.134.10 lakhs after finalizing the works entrusted to the claimant/contractor.

2. Before the Arbitrator, there were as many as 13 claims and the Arbitrator in his award dated 09.01.2004 had adverted to each one of the claims and allowed for claim Nos.1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. As regards the Claim No.10 which was purported to be for a breach of contract, although body of the award stated that it was completely rejected, the Arbitrator was allowing for an amount of Rs.33,428/- in the summary of paragraphs. The Claim No.14 was that the contractor was entitled to price escalation on account of the increase in price as per accepted conditions. The Arbitrator’s award stated as follows:-

“Condition No.4 of the agreement will be enforced by the respondent.”

3. It appears that PWD itself was not satisfied with the award and had approached the Court with a plea for a correction of the award under Section 33 before the Arbitrator himself. It was rejected. It appears also that it also filed a petition for setting aside the award which was also dismissed. The award was put in execution in the manner in which it was drawn up.

4. In the execution petition filed by the decree holder, Clause No.7 relating to the amount claimed under the decree was stated as follows:-

“As per award and clause 4 of the agreement between the decree holder and the JDs pertaining to breach of agreement and escalation.”

It can be noticed that no particular amount had been specified as the amount due and payable to the decree holder. However, in the objection given by the judgment debtor, it was contended that the claimant/contractor was not entitled to assume that he was entitled to Rs.7,44,741/-. It was specifically contended that the said sum was not payable.

5. The Executing Court held that the Arbitrator himself had not determined any particular amount as the amount payable towards escalation. I cannot find any error in the Executing Court for such an observation, for, an Executing Court does not adjudicate on what was the amount that remained to be adjudicated, unless there was a specified amount. It shall not be permissible for Executing Court to turn itself as an appellate authority over the Arbitrator or a Court of original institution for it to render adjudication on the amount that could be treated as the amount payable for escalation of prices.

6. In revision, the learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions to the effect that the original contract makes reference to a clause in the agreement accepting the tender offered by the contractor. That reads as follows:-

“4. Escalation on labour and material & P.O.L. shall be allowed as per clause 10 of C.C. of CPWD specification.”

7. Since the clause refers to clause 10(c)(c) of CPWD specification, the specification of the clause would also become essential for us to reproduce:-

“Clause 10CC

If the prices of materials (not being materials supplied or services rendered at fixed prices by the department in accordance with clause 10 & 34 thereof) and/or wages of labour required for execution of the work increase, the contractor shall be compensated for such increase as per provisions detailed below and the amount of the contract shall accordingly be varied, subject to the condition that such compensation for escalation in prices shall be available only for the work done during the stipulated period of the contract including such period for which the contract is validly extended under the provisions of Clause 5 of the contract without any action under the clause 2 and also subject to the condition that