R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 21.8.2000 passed by Addl. District Judge, Karnal, who allowed the appeal filed by Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (in short Board) by setting aside the order dated 26.11.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal, who dismissed the objections under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by the Board and made the award rule of the Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Satish Kumar filed an application under Sections 14/17 of the Act for making the award dated 8.1.1997 as rule of the Court with the averments that vide letter No. EEFII-88-2493 dated 5.8.1998 work for the construction of road in sub-yard at Chichhrana was allotted to him and after completion of its construction possession of the same was handed over to the Board, but some disputes arose regarding payment. Due to that as per Clause 25 of the agreement Chief Engineer of the Board Shri D.R. Kapoor was appointed as arbitrator who gave award of Rs. 15,850/- in favour of the petitioner and the Board was supposed to make the payment within 90 days failing which the Board was liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum till payment. His application was earlier dismissed and the award was set aside by the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Karnal on 29.1.1994 and reference was made to the arbitrator for giving the decision afresh within four months. The arbitrator after giving proper opportunity of hearing passed fresh award on 8.1.1997 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner made a request for making this award as rule of the Court and he also sought direction that payment be made to him along with interest @ 18% par annum. Notice of the application was given to the Board which filed the objections under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Act. It was pleaded by the Board that the arbitrator has awarded sum of Rs. 44,570/- without giving any reason. He has given pendente lite and pre-reference interest for which he was not empowered. It was also pleaded that the award has been passed after the expiry of four months.
(3.) A re-joinder was filed by the petitioner against the reply of the Board and from the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- "1. Whether the award dated 8.1.97 is liable to be made rule of the Court on the ground as alleged in the application ? OPA 2. Whether the Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present application ? OPP 3. Whether the award dated 8.1.97 is time barred ? OPR 4. Whether the award dated 8.1.97 is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in objection petition ? OPR 5. Relief." ;