S. ACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision is directed against an order dated 6-12-78 passed by the subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna, in M. J. C. No. 13 of 1978. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as follows:--The Collector, Kalahandi was the named arbitrator in respect of the disputes arising out of the contract in question between the parties to this revision. The opposite party in this case moved the collector, Kalahandi to arbitrate certain disputes arising between the parties in respect of the contract in question. When the matter was so pending before the arbitrator, a petition for extension of time was filed before the arbitrator by the opposite party. On the filing of that petition, a letter, being letter No. 304 dated 9-2-78, from the office of the Collector and District Magistrate, Kalahandi, signed by someone on his behalf, was received in the Court of the Subordinate judge, Bhawanipatna for extension of time for making of the award by the collector. This letter was taken up for consideration and order by the court below in the presence of both the parties, as is evident from the impugned order. The court below found that in the facts and circumstances of the case there was necessity and justification for extending the time for making the award by the arbitrator. Accordingly, the court extended the time by 4 months from the date of the passing of the said order to enable the arbitrator to give his award. ( 3 ) MR. Sahoo, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the court was not legally justified in enlarging the time on the said letter, as the Collector himself did not sign that letter and did not move the court for extension of time. ( 4 ) THE letter on which the said extension of time was granted was issued (from the office of the Collector and District Magistrate, Kalahandi. Of course, that letter was not signed by the Collector but it was signed by someone else on behalf of the Collector. From the order sheet of the arbitration case before the collector it appears that the arbitrator, i. e. the Collector, Kalahandi, himself, in his order dated 8-2-78 in that arbitration case, directed that the Subordinate judge be requested to extend the time by 4 months from the date of his order. From the order sheet of the arbitration case before the collector it appears that the arbitrator, i. e. the Collector, Kalahandi, himself, in his order dated 8-2-78 in that arbitration case, directed that the Subordinate judge be requested to extend the time by 4 months from the date of his order. In pursuance of the said order, the letter "no. 304 dated 9-2-78 was issued from the office of the Collector to the Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna, and on a consideration of this letter and other materials and on hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties, the Subordinate Judge extended the time as stated above. I do not see any illegality in the said extension of time by the subordinate Judge. Sub-section (1) of Section 28 of the Arbitration Act is very wide and confers full discretion on the court to enlarge time for making the award at any time. There is absolutely no restriction in this section as to on whose application the said extension would be granted. There is no prescription or specification in this section about the persons or party on whose application the court can grant extension of time. So there is no limitation on the court to grant extension of time suo motu or on the application or move of any party or person, in a fit case, but that can be done only after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned with that matter. In this case the Collector, the arbitrator in the case, himself decided to move the court and the aforesaid letter was written to the court in accordance with the said decision of the arbitrator. Merely because the Collector himself did not sign this letter, no illegality was committed by the court in granting the said extension of time. The learned Subordinate Judge was perfectly within his jurisdiction to grant extension of time on the aforesaid letter. ( 5 ) ON hearing the counsel appearing for both the parties and on a perusal of the papers on record, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. There is, therefore, no merit in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( 6 ) IN this case the time fixed for sub mission of the award has expired in the meantime due to the pendency of this revision petition. There is, therefore, no merit in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( 6 ) IN this case the time fixed for sub mission of the award has expired in the meantime due to the pendency of this revision petition. I, therefore, deem it just and proper to extend the time for making the award by another four months from the date of the receipt of this order by the Subordinate Judge. The subordinate Judge on receipt of this order must immediately inform the arbitrator accordingly.