Short Note : The material facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are as follows: Swami Uddhavdas, since deceased, submitted an application before the lower Court under section 31(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, hereinafter called the Act. In that application, it was stated that the applicant was appointed as an arbitrator by the appellant and the respondents by an arbitration agreement dated 18th March 1966 entered into between the parties, that in pursuance of the said appointment the applicant made an award on 4th June 1966, and that a decree be, therefore, passed in terms of that award. In reply, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 admitted that they had entered into an arbitration agreement with the appellant on 18th March 1966 and that Swami Uddhavdas was appointed as an arbitrator by the parties. It was, however, averred that the award was made on 22nd March 1966 and that thereafter the arbitrator became functus officio and had no authority to make another award on 4th June 1966 as alleged. It was further averred that the award dated 4th June 1966 was also liable to be set aside as the award was invalid inter alia on the ground that the arbitrator had mis-conducted himself. The appellant denied that any award was made on 22nd March 1966 and prayed that a decree be passed in terms of the award dated 4th June 1966. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed issues and, after appreciating the evidence on record, found that the arbitrator had made an award on 22nd March 1966 and had also mis-conducted himself in making another award on 4th June 1966. The trial Court, therefore, held that the award dated 4th June 1966 was invalid and no decree could, therefore, be passed in terms of that award. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal. Held : It is further significant to note that no evidence whatsoever has been brought on record on behalf of appellant Meghraj to show or even to suggest that the arbitrator had conducted any proceeding in relation to arbitration subsequent to 22nd Match 1966, when the award was pronounced according to the respondents. Held : It is further significant to note that no evidence whatsoever has been brought on record on behalf of appellant Meghraj to show or even to suggest that the arbitrator had conducted any proceeding in relation to arbitration subsequent to 22nd Match 1966, when the award was pronounced according to the respondents. The conduct of the parties in executing the agreement Ex.D-2/2 in terms of the award dated 22nd March 1966 and the fact that DW5 Shitaldas offered to pay a sum of Rs. 9,400 to the appellant as directed by the award dated 22nd March 1966, lend assurance to the case set up by the respondents that the award was pronounced on 22nd March 1966 by the arbitrator. Thus on a conspectus of the evidence on record, we hold that the arbitrator had made a valid award on 22nd March 1966, and as be became functus officio thereafter, the subsequent award dated 4th June 1966 produced by him was rightly set aside by the lower Court. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant also urged that there was no notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing of the award dated 22nd March 1966. Now, the award, as is established from the evidence on record, was pronounced in the presence of the parties. The object behind the provisions relating to notice to the parties of the making and signing of the award, is to appraise the parties of the making of the award. Even assuming that no formal notice in writing was sent to the parties of the making and signing of the award, the omission to give such a formal notice, when the parties were present when the award was pronounced would not invalidate the award. Appeal dismissed.