JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This appeal u/s 39(1) of the Arbitration Act of 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is directed against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Baripada making the award dated 16-1-1979 a rule of the Court and directed a decree to be drawn up in accordance with the terms thereof. 2. Three objections were raised viz. (i) the award was delivered beyond the time limited by the Court and as such was vitiated, (ii) the Arbitrator took into consideration certain works which was not covered by the contract and the grant of compensation on such account was without jurisdiction and (iii) the Government pleader appearing for the Appellant before the Arbitrator wanted time to argue on certain questions of law but the Arbitrator without giving him an opportunity of being heard, concluded the matter. 3. The learned trial judge examined each of the points and negatived them. In appeal, the self same contentions are reiterated. 4. Rule 3 of the First Schedule of the Act prescribes that the Arbitrator is to make his award within four months after entering into the reference. Section 28 of the Act authorises extension from time to time. In the case of Hari Shankar Lal Vs. Shambhunath Prasad and Others the Court pointed out that expiry of period of four months does not have the effect of rendering the Arbitrator functus officio. There is an order by the Arbitrator which clearly shows that both sides agreed to extension of time. In token of this, the signatures have been obtained in the order sheet of the Arbitration proceeding. This Court in the case of Ganesh Chandra Misra Vs. Artatrana Misra and Others has taken the view that in such circumstances estoppel sets in and the party who continued to appear before the Arbitrator after the expiry of time set for making the Award would not be entitled to dispute the award on the ground that the Arbitrator has made the award beyond time. To the same effect is Fun Bench decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. Vs. Dr. Prasun Kumar Banerjee. The ratio of a later Supreme Court decision in the case of Hari Krishna Wattal Vs. Vaikunth Nath Pandya (Dead) by Lrs. and Another, also supports the same position. To the same effect is Fun Bench decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. Vs. Dr. Prasun Kumar Banerjee. The ratio of a later Supreme Court decision in the case of Hari Krishna Wattal Vs. Vaikunth Nath Pandya (Dead) by Lrs. and Another, also supports the same position. I am not inclined to accept the submission of learned Standing Counsel that the award is vitiated on account having been made after lapse of time. 5. The Arbitrator took into consideration certain claims for additional works. These having been found to be supple: mental to the main work. It has been held in series of cases in this Court that in such circumstances the work would be taken as ancillary covered by the same Arbitration clause and the Arbitrator would have jurisdiction to entertain such claims and adjudicate. Thus the second objection is without force. 6. Learned Standing Counsel fairly conceded that there is no material available on the record on the basis of which it can be successfully contended that there has been prejudice on account of the fact that opportunity was not given to the Government Pleader to argue on certain questions of law before the Arbitrator. It is not known as to what question of law the Government Pleader wanted to advance and from the order sheet of the Arbitrator it also does not appear that the Government Pleader did indicate any specific point for argument. Parties were given appropriate opportunities from time to time and the Arbitrator had concluded the proceeding and reserved the making of the Award. In such circumstances the third contention has also no ground. 7. All the contentions raised fail and therefore the appeal is dismissed with costs. 8. There is a cross objection by the Respondent for grant of future interest. The decree has incorporated provision for 6 percent per annum as future interest till recovery. In the cross objection claim at 121/2 % per annum has been made I do not think, there is any justification to interfere in the claim. The cross objection is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed