Judgment

MISRA, J. :- Hardyal, the respondent, entered into a contract with the State of Punjab, Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) for the construction of certain bridges and culverts on the Mukerian-Naushehra Road. The agreement between the parties was evidenced by a writing. The written agreement contained an arbitration clause which provided that dispute, if any, between the parties would be referred to the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads), Jullundur Circle. It appears that no period was fixed in the agreement of reference for giving the award and therefore period of four months as prescribed in clause 3 of the First Schedule attached to the Arbitration Act would be the statutory period for giving the award.

2. Some dispute did arise between the parties. The respondent, therefore, sent a notice on January 7, 1960 to the Superintending Engineer requesting him to accept his claim to the tune of Rs. 7,568/- and give his award accordingly. The respondent claimed this amount of compensation broadly on two counts : (1) that the Sub-Divisional Officer had got certian bridges demolished which according to the respondent had been constructed strictly in terms of the agreement, and (2) that the respondent had also been directed to stop the work.

3. The arbitrator gave his award against the respondent on April 28, 1961, but after the expiry of the prescribed period. It is, however, admitted by the respondent that he participated in the proceedings before the arbitrator even after the expiry of the statutory period. The respondent challenged the award by filing an objection under S. 30 of the Arbitration Act on a number of grounds. On the pleas taken by the respondent the Senior Sub-Judge framed the following four issues: (1) whether the objections were premature, (2) whether the arbitrator had misconducted himself or the proceedings, (3) whether the award was against natural justice, and (4) whether the award was made after inordinate delay.

4. The learned Judge overruled all the objections and upheld the award. Issue No. 1 was not pressed before him. The contention of the respondent that reasonable opportunity had not been afforded to him to adduce evidence, by the arbitrator, was also repelled by the learned Judge. He observed :

"One of the grounds taken up for setting aside the award as stated in the application was that the petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence. But the record of the proceedings dated 24th of April, 1961 shows that the parties did not want to say anything further and the hearing of the case was, therefore, closed under such circumstances."

The plea regarding misconduct on the part of the arbitrator was also overruled and dealing with this point the learned Judge observed :

"Nothing has been pointed out to me in the court during the course of the arguments as to how the arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings."

The plea regarding delay in giving the award was rejected on the ground that the respondent had been participating in the proceedings before the arbitrator even after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation.

5. The respondent took the matter in appeal to the High Court. When the matter came up before a learned single Judge he referred the following two points for decision by a Division Bench on account of the importance of the question involved in the case and also on account of conflict of judicial opinion on the point:

1. Whether the award given after the expiry of the prescribed period without extension of time by the court was invalid?

2. Whether the rejection of the objection regarding, delay in giving the award on the ground that the objector had participated in the arbitration proceedings even after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed would by necessary implication amount to extending the time under S. 28 of the Arbitration Act by the Court?

6. The Division Bench allowed the objection