ORDER D.S. Mathur, J. - This is a revision u/s 115 CPC by the Union of India through the Executive Engineer, U.P. Division, C.P.W. D. Dehradun, against the order dated 25-3-1964 of the Additional Civil Judge of Dehradun allowing the appeal of M/s. Khyber Electric Stores, opposite party and thereby setting aside the award of the Arbitrator. 2. The jurisdiction of the revisional court is limited by the provisions of Section 115 Code of Civil Procedure, but it can interfere under Clause (c) in case there is breach of the provisions of the law, or admissible evidence had been disregarded by the court below. 3. The award as filed was not on a stamped paper. The Civil Judge was under the impression that such an award was invalid and liable to be impounded. Probably, what he meant was that such an award could not be made a rule of the court. The award did not relate to immovable property and hence registration was not necessary. Section 36 of the Stamp Act clearly provides that where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided u/s 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument had not been duly stamped. Consequently, the lower appellate court had no jurisdiction to disregard the award on the ground that it is not duly stamped. 4. It may here be mentioned that a properly stamped award was later filed. 5. The learned civil judge was unduly moved by the fact that a copy of the arbitration agreement was not on the record. What was stated in this connection was that the agreement was produced before the arbitrator but was taken back by the department. The Arbitrator could have prepared a copy of the agreement and used it for the making of the award. The Civil judge could be justified in setting aside the award if it was established, or the Arbitrator made an admission, that no copy of the agreement was available during the arbitration. 6. Article 178 of the Limitation Act applies to an application u/s 14 of the Arbitration Act for the filing of the award. When the Arbitrator files the award, he does not make any application for permission to file the award. He files the award as a matter of right. 6. Article 178 of the Limitation Act applies to an application u/s 14 of the Arbitration Act for the filing of the award. When the Arbitrator files the award, he does not make any application for permission to file the award. He files the award as a matter of right. Consequently, Article 178 was not applicable and the award could easily be filed on the expiry of one year. 7. Sri Banarsi Das, Advocate for the opposite party, invited my attention to the fact that the Arbitrator had merely expressed his opinion without giving any reasons and without making any comments on the evidence produced before him. An arbitrator has the power not to give reasons and if he decides to simply express his opinion such an award cannot be set aside whatever the personal opinion of a court of law may be. The courts have the power to set aside the award only if there exists an error apparent on the face of the award, but when the award contains no reasoning and contains no comments on the evidence there is nothing before the court of law which can empower it to set aisle the award. The maximum that a court of law can do is to direct that costs shall be on the parties. Only the award of costs is within the discretion of the court but not the validity of an award. 8. The revision is hereby allowed and the order under revision is set aside. At tie same time the order of the Munsif is restored. Costs of all the courts on the parties. It is, however, made clear that a decree shall be passed on the basis of the award in terms of the order of the Munsif.