JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - The Petitioner filed Title Suit No. 28 of 1966 in the Court of the Munsif, Second Court, Cuttack for declaration of title to, confirmation of possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession of 0.287 acre appertaining to plot No. 837 and 0.102 acre appertaining to plot No. 835 under Khata No. 455 in mouza Kanpur on the strength of a sale deed dated 19.12.1964 executed in her favour by opposite parties 2 to 4 for a consideration of Rs. 800/-. Her contention was that although she was the owner in exclusive possession of the suit, lands, the opposite party No. 1 who is her husband's uncle created disturbance in her possession on the strength of a deed of petition dated 15-1-1963. It was alleged that either by,fraud or by mistake the suit plot No. 837 was included in the deed of partition and was shown to have been divided between the Petitioner's husband and the opposite party No. 1. 2. The opposite party No. 1 did not dispute the Petitioner's claim with regard to plot No. 835, but contended that he was all along in possession of plot No. 837 along with the Petitioner's husband and that the same had been partitioned between them. But in order to avoid future troubles, it was decided that a sale deed should be taken in respect of that plot from opposite parties 2 to 4 who were the ex-proprietors of the Touzi comprising the same and accordingly opposite party No. 1 paid to the Petitioner's husband a sum of Rs. 400/-as half of the consideration money; but the Petitioner's husband fraudulently got the sale deed executed in the name of the Petitioner alone. 3. After settlement of issues, the parties on 24-7-1968 filed a joint petition for referring their dispute for the decision of Shri B.C. Das, a retired District Judge who was selected by the partie's as the sole Arbitrator. In his letter dated 18-10-1968 Shri B.C. Das intimated to the learned Munsif that he had no objection to act as Arbitrator, since the parties who reside in the neighbour hood of his home village had approached him with request to settle up their family dispute and he had accepted their request. In his letter dated 18-10-1968 Shri B.C. Das intimated to the learned Munsif that he had no objection to act as Arbitrator, since the parties who reside in the neighbour hood of his home village had approached him with request to settle up their family dispute and he had accepted their request. By his order No. 66 dated 28-7.1969 the Court directed that the Arbitrator would determine all matters in dispute between the parties as appearing in the pleadings. The Arbitrator submitted his award on 31st August, 1971. The relevant portion of the award is extracted below: I have heard the Plaintiff's husband and the Defendant No. 1 and their Advocates at length and have very carefully gone through the documents exhibited and statements of the witnesses examined. I have also inspected the disputed plot and its surroundings. However, having in mind the instructions to arbitration as contained in several decisions of the highest judiciary in the country, I refrain from entering into any discussion of the evidence placed before me and keep my reasons to myself for the decision that I now come to, lest that might defeat the very object of arbitration which is to put an, end to the dispute and to ensure its finality. I accordingly award that out of the disputed plot No. 837 the Plaintiff is to get only 0.143 (one hundred forty three) acre from its southern end her claim in regard to the rest of the plot is rejected. She is further to get a sum of Rs. 400/- (four hundred) only from the Defendant No. 1 which, if not paid within one from to-day, shall carry interest at 6 p.c.p.a. till payment. Each party to bear its own costs. 4. The Plaintiff-Petitioner made on application to the Court for setting aside the award on various grounds, the principal' of which was that the Arbitrator had exceeded his authority in,directing that Defendant No. 1 shall be given a part of, the land in plot No. 837 on his paying Rs. 400/- to the Plaintiff. It was contended that this part of the award was contrary to the pleadings. The learned Munsif set aside the award holding that the Arbitrator had made out third case not covered by the pleadings. 400/- to the Plaintiff. It was contended that this part of the award was contrary to the pleadings. The learned Munsif set aside the award holding that the Arbitrator had made out third case not covered by the pleadings. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge set aside the order of the learned Munsif and directed him to proceed to pronounce judgment in accordance with the award. He, however, held that the part of the award directing payment of interest at the rate of 6 p.c.p.a. should be set aside as being vague. It is against this decision of the learned appellate Judge that the present civil revision has been preferred. 5. The main point urged by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Arbitrator has gone beyond the scope of the pleadings in awarding a portion of plot No. 837 to the Defendant No. 1. His contention is that the award should have been confined to the dispute between the parties as to whether the Defendant No. 1 had paid a sum of Rs. 400/- to the husband of the Plaintiff for the purchase of the suit land jointly in the name of the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 and further as to whether the husband of the Plaintiff had fraudulently got the sale deed executed and registered in the name of the Plaintiff alone. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 on the other hand contended that the entire dispute between the parties having been referred to arbitration, the Arbitrator has finally, decided all the matters in difference to bring peace and amity in the family and that he has not gone beyond the scope of the reference. 6. The cardinal principles to be kept in view while judging whether on award should be set aside or not have very clearly and exhaustively been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Santa Sila Devi and Another Vs. Dhirendra Nath Sen and Others as follows: (i) A Court should approach on award with a desire to support it, if that is reasonably possible, rather than to destroy it by calling it illegal. (ii) Unless the reference to arbitration specifically so requires the arbitrator is not bound to deal with each claim or matter separately, but can deliver a consolidated award. (ii) Unless the reference to arbitration specifically so requires the arbitrator is not bound to deal with each claim or matter separately, but can deliver a consolidated award. (iii) Unless the contrary appears the Court will presume that the award disposes finally of all the matters in difference; and (iv) where on award is made de praemissis (that is, of and concerning all matters in dispute referred to the arbitrator), the presumption is that the arbitrator intended to dispose finally of all the matters in difference; and his award will be held final if by any intendment it can be made so. 7. Besides, it has been repeatedly laid down by the Supreme Court and by the different High Courts that on Arbitrator is a Judge of the choice of the parties and his decision should not be set aside even if the Court as a Court of law would come to a different conclusion on the same facts, unless there is on error apparent on the face of the record which makes it unsustainable. See Seth Thawardas Pherumal Vs. The Union of India (UOI) S.B. Dutt Vs. University of Delhi Union of India (UOI) Vs. A.L. Rallia Ram. Allen Berry and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Union of India (UOI), New Delhi, . 8. The principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court apply with full force to the facts of this case. In the award the Arbitrator has allowed the Plaintiff to remain in possession of half of the disputed plot No. 837 and has directed that the Defendant No. 1 should retain possession of the other half on the condition that he shall pay a sum of Rs. 400/- to the Plaintiff. In doing so he can by no means be said to have gone beyond the scope of the suit. He has clearly dealt with the dispute between the parties with regard to the disputed plot No. 837. He has only given a relief which is different from what either party claimed. It is not shown that there is any error apparent on the face of the award. The learned appellate Judge was, therefore, justified in upholding the award. 9. No doubt, the Arbitrator has omitted to mention the date within which the sum of Rs. 400/- is to, be paid by the Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff. It is not shown that there is any error apparent on the face of the award. The learned appellate Judge was, therefore, justified in upholding the award. 9. No doubt, the Arbitrator has omitted to mention the date within which the sum of Rs. 400/- is to, be paid by the Defendant No. 1 to the Plaintiff. There appears to be on accidental omission of the time of payment after the word "one" appearing in the operative portion of the award; but this part of the award is severable and distinct from the rest of the award as rightly observed by the learned appellate Judge. This question does not, however, arise for decision as immediately after the filing of the award the opposite party No. 1 has deposited in Court the sue of Rs. 400/- by chalan No. 281 dated 6-10-1971. 10. There is, therefore, no merit in this revision and it is, accordingly dismissed with costs to opposite party No. 1. Final Result : Dismissed