Judgment :- 1. The respondent Government Contractor entered into an agreement with the appellants for the Flood Relief work of Chayam Vavarakonam thodu in Vidhura Panchayat. According to the agreement the work was to be completed on or before 20-3-1973. Since disputes between the parties arose, the contract was cancelled on 5-4-1974. The respondent filed a claim petition before the Chief Engineer (Arbitration) on 5-9-1980. The Arbitrator passed an award on 10-5-1982. The award was later filed before the Sub Court, Trivandrum under S.14 of the Arbitration Act. The appellants filed an application to set aside the award. The court below dismissed that application and passed a decree in terms of the award. The grounds urged in the appeal memorandum are that the Arbitrator entered on reference on 4-10-1980 and the award should have been made within four months from that date or within the period if any extended by consent of parties. According to the appellant the present award has been passed only on 10-5-1982, and by that time the Arbitrator had became functus officio and therefore, the award has been passed without jurisdiction. There is not much force in this contention. On a perusal of the correspondence file submitted by the appellants it is seen at pages 85, 87 and 89 that the Arbitrator had extended the period as the parties on either side mutually agreed to extend the period. At page 89 of the correspondence file, it is seen that the period was extended by four months from 4-2-1982. The counsel of the claimant as well as the respondents are seen to have signed in these documents. S.28 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 gives power for the Arbitrator or Umpire to enlarge time for making the award. S.28(2) of the Arbitration Act reads thus: "28(2). Any provision in an arbitration agreement whereby the arbitrators or umpire may, except with the consent of all the parties to the agreement, enlarge the time for making the award, shall be void and of no effect." 2. S.28(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been explained by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Hari Krishna v. Vaikunth Nath (A. I. R.1973 S. C. 2479). The Supreme Court held: "Brief Note:-(A) Arbitrator can enlarge time for making award if after entering on the arbitration the parties mutually agree to such enlargement. S.28(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been explained by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Hari Krishna v. Vaikunth Nath (A. I. R.1973 S. C. 2479). The Supreme Court held: "Brief Note:-(A) Arbitrator can enlarge time for making award if after entering on the arbitration the parties mutually agree to such enlargement. It is not the requirement of law that the power to enlarge time by a subsequent agreement must be stipulated in the arbitration agreement itself. Such a consent must be a post reference consent is clear from S.28(2) which renders pull and void a provision in the original agreement to that effect, In a sense where a provision is made in the original agreement that the Arbitrator may enlarge the time, such a provision always implies mutual consent for enlargement but such mutual consent initially expressed in the original agreement does not save the provision from being void." 3. The Arbitrator has extended the time with mutual consent of the parties. Therefore the Arbitrator had not become functus officio when the award was passed as it was within the extended time. The counsel for the appellants has not raised any other serious grounds to challenge the award. The M. F. A. fails and the same is dismissed without costs. Dismissed.