This Civil First Appeal by, the Tripura Administration is directed against the) order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tripura, dated 15-5-64, whereby he set aside the award, made by the Arbitrator Shri A. K. Sen. (2) The facts which have led up to this appeal lie in a short compass and may be briefly narrated. Shri A. K. Sen, S. E. was appointed. Arbitrator, without the intervention of the Court according to the terms of the agreement between, the parties by the Administrator, Tripura, in respect of certain disputes. The Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 5-11-62. He applied to the Subordinate Judge, Tripura, for enlargement of time for making his award. The Court did not pass any order on the Arbitrator's application for enlargement of time till after the filing of the award. The Arbitrator made his award on 14-4-63 and filed it in the Court on 15-4-63. The respondent being notified of the filing of the award filed objection. The learned Subordinate Judge, after hearing the Advocates set aside the award on 15-5-64. (3) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied' with the aforesaid order of the learned Subordinate Judge,) the Government Advocate has filed this appeal to this Court on behalf of the Tripura Administration. (4) The first contention advanced by the learned counsel for Tripura Administration is that the finding of the Subordinate Judge that, 'the Arbitrator filed the award without request from any, party to the arbitration agreement or without the order of the Court; that, the filing of the award; has been done in violation of the provisions of sub-section 2 of section 14 of Arbitration Act and hence the Court cannot extend the time under section 28 of the Arbitration Act,' is palpably, wrong. There is nothing in section 14 which pre-| eludes the Arbitrator from filing the award without the consent of the parties. In the instant case, Shri A. K. Sen, being the arbitrator had every right to file the award. The Court should have treated it as a proper filing of the award. In support of his argument he placed reliance upon the case Narayan Bhawu v. Dewajibhawu, AIR 1945 Nag 117. In this case Puranik J. observed as follows: "There is nothing in section 14 which precludes the arbitrators from filing the award. The Court should have treated it as a proper filing of the award. In support of his argument he placed reliance upon the case Narayan Bhawu v. Dewajibhawu, AIR 1945 Nag 117. In this case Puranik J. observed as follows: "There is nothing in section 14 which precludes the arbitrators from filing the award. It is not correct to say that only the parties to the arbitration should make an application in Court for filing an award or causing an award to be filed." (5) In order to appreciate this argument, it to better to refer to section 14 of the Arbitration Act. Section 14 of the Arbitration Act runs as under : ;-, "14 (i) When the arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and' of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award. (2) The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the, request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so-directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration; and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award' or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents, which may have been taken and proved before? them, to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. (3) x xx x." , According to sub-section 2 of section 14 of Arbi­tration Act. the Arbitrator can file the award only, on the request of any party to the arbitration, agreement or under the orders of the Court. Iii the instant case the arbitrator filed the award without any request from either party, therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge was right in remarking that the filing of the award was done in violation to the provisions of sub-section 2 of section 14 of the Arbitration Act. (6) As regards the ruling cited by the learned Government Advocate, it is sufficient to say, that it is inapplicable to the facts and circumstan­ces of the present case. In that case the parties, asked the Arbitrator to file the award, therefore, he filed it. (6) As regards the ruling cited by the learned Government Advocate, it is sufficient to say, that it is inapplicable to the facts and circumstan­ces of the present case. In that case the parties, asked the Arbitrator to file the award, therefore, he filed it. This is not so in this case, therefore, the finding of the Subordinate Judge is correct. (7) The second contention of the learned; Government Advocate is that in this case the application was filed for extension of time, under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, to enable the. Arbitrator to file the award by I5th of April, 1963 A. D. But the learned Subordinate Judge failed to appreciate the, facts of the case and "wrongly rejected the application for extension of time. Under section 28 of the Arbitration Act,: the power of the Court is unlimited and the Court has ample power to extend the period of 4 months.. If an Arbitrator makes an award beyond time, the; delay may be condoned at any time by the Court in a proper case. In support of his argument, he cited case law reported in Eadha Kishen v.' Madho Krishna, AIR 1952 All, 856. In this case, it has been held by Bind Basni Prasad J. that; "The language of Section 28 is very general and it is not limited only to reference to arbitra­tion made in a suit pending before the Court. The power given to Court is so wide that it can extend the time even after the award has been made. Hence though the award was made after, the expiry of four months after the reference, i£ the time has been extended by the trial Court, the award does not become invalid." (8) The learned counsel for the respondent in order to controvert the contention of Government Advocate averred that the Court has power to, extend time even if the award is filed after the expiry of 4 months after reference. But the facts, of the present case are different from the Allahabad case. In the Allahabad case the matter was referred to the Arbitrator by the Court. But the facts, of the present case are different from the Allahabad case. In the Allahabad case the matter was referred to the Arbitrator by the Court. But in the present case it was not referred to the Arbitrator by the Court and it does not appear that any of the parties to the agreement requested the Arbitrator to file the award, therefore, it is clear that the Arbitrator filed the) award against the provisions of Arbitration Act Under these circumstances, the Court was justified^ in rejecting the petition for extension of time (9) I have given my most careful and anxious, consideration to it and I have fully pondered oven, the rival arguments advanced on both sides. I cannot persuade myself to agree with the con­tention of the- learned counsel for Tripura Adminis­tration. This is a fact that the power of the Court under Section 28 Arbitration Act is unlimited and the Court has ample power to extend the period of 4 months. The only restriction is that it must be exercised with judicial discretion. But in the, instant case, the Court felt the difficulty in extending the time as it was filed in violation to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of Arbitration Act. If it had been filed at the request of any of the parties to the agreement, the Court could have extended time under Section 28 of Arbitration Act. I, therefore, find that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge on this point cannot be called erroneous. (10) The last contention of the learned Government Advocate is that the Tripura Administration is now prepared to file stamps, therefore, the; award should be accepted. (11) In this case, the award was filed on 15-4-63 without proper stamps. According to the provisions of Arbitration Act after the award is made the Arbitrator shall give notice to the par­ties of making and signing thereof and of the, amount of fees and charges payable in respect of. Arbitration and award. There was no such notice to any one of the parties about the filing of the stamp of the award. In the absence of such notice it was not possible for the Court to realise the stamps from the parties. Moreover, before the, Subordinate Judge, both the parties were not prepared to bear the costs of the award. There was no such notice to any one of the parties about the filing of the stamp of the award. In the absence of such notice it was not possible for the Court to realise the stamps from the parties. Moreover, before the, Subordinate Judge, both the parties were not prepared to bear the costs of the award. The willingness shown now by the counsel for Tripura administration, being highly belated could not be, considered. The award was not filed on proper stamps the Court was therefore justified in passing the above order. (12) No other point worth mentioning was pressed before this Court. (13) In view of the foregoing reasons, I find that the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge, is correct and calls for no interference. (14) In the result, I find that the appeal is without substance and hence it is dismissed with, costs. Appeal dismissed.