B.C.VARMA, J.

( 1. ) This is an appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act.

( 2. ) The State of Madhya Pradesh invited certain tenders for the construction of a foot bridge across Narmada river at Onkareshwar. The respondents tender of Rs. 16 lacs was accepted on a lump sum basis. The agreement was reduced into writing embodying the terms of the contract. Clause 17 of the contract provides for settlement of dispute arising out of and under the said contract to arbitration. The respondent undertook the work but disputes arose. Shri M.P. Apte was appointed arbitrator by the respondent while States nominee was shri V.N. Rao. Shri Y.K. Patil was appointed the umpire. The arbitrator could not pronounce the award in time and, therefore, the time was extended for making award. On 20-3-1980, the award was pronounced and later filed in Court. While the respondent prayed for a decree in terms of the award, the appellant objected on various grounds. The lower Court substantially accepted the award returned by the arbitrators and passed the decree which is the subject matter of this appeal.

( 3. ) A perusal of the award would indicate that the respondent raised many items of claim before the arbitrators. Not only this, he also claimed that he was entitled to interest on all the amount payable to him. The appellant joined issues and the parties filed agreed issues before the arbitrator. The appellant answered each item of the claim made by the respondent and contested it before the arbitrator who gave the parties full opportunities of substantiating their contentions and then after hearing them passed the impugned award. This award also includes a direction for payment of interest at nine per cent per annum on the amount found due to the respondent from a period after a month of the award, i.e. from 28-4-1980, until realisation. Before the lower Court also the amount found by the arbitrator as due to the respondent against different heads was challenged and so also was challenged the award of interest. The Court did not find the arbitrator guilty of misconduct or of misconducting the proceedings.

( 4. ) Before us Shri R.K. Thakur, learned Government Advocate, first argued that since the contract was for a lump sum amount of Rs. 16 lacs, the arbitrator ought not to have entertained the claim against specific items. This argument must be rejected for the simple reason that no objection of this kind was raised before the arbitrator. Instead of protesting to the laying of claim under various heads, the appellant/State joined issues and the parties submitted agreed issues for decision by the arbitrator. The award shows that the State placed before the arbitrator all material at its command to demonstrate that the claim made by the respondent was untenable. Even after the close of evidence when the parties addressed the arbitrators no such contention was raised. It will, therefore, be too late in the day now to permit such an objection to be raised. Even otherwise, what we find is that although the contractor was agreed to be paid a lump sum amount, he had to specify and particularise his claim which could be done only by mentioning the amount due to him against various items of work and on different counts. This contention is, therefore, rejected.

( 5. ) It was then urged that the award is liable to be vitiated for it assigns no reason for the conclusion reached and has not made even a reference of the evidence adduced. This argument has been fully answered by a Division Bench of this Court in Umraosingh vs. State of M.P. 1976 MPLJ 91. It must be remembered that the Court before whom an award by the arbitrator is filed does not deal with that award as a Court of appeal. It has to act within the framework of the Arbitration Act. The award can be set aside only in terms of Section 30. After quoting several authorities of the Supreme Court as also relying upon certain decision, the learned Judges of the Division Bench in Umraosinghs case