JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal and D.S. Sinha, JJ. - This appeal has been filed by the Union of India against the judgment and order passed by the Civil Judge, Gorakhpur dated 9.11.1977 allowing the objection filed by the respondents against the award dated 6.5.1974. 2. On a dispute having arisen with regard to the supply of 25 lac bricks, the same was referred to the Arbitrator, Shri G.P. Srivastava was appointed as Arbitrator for examining the claim of the respondent No. 1. He invited the parties to put up their claims and file evidence. He gave award in favour of the respondent No. 1 holding that he was entitled to get Rs. 3644/- from the Railway towards the bricks supplied under the aforesaid contract. Since the respondent No. 1 was not satisfied and desired some more to be awarded, he filed an objection under section 30 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the same. The objection was contested by the Railway. Learned Civil Judge accepted the objection and set aside the award, against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. We have noted above that the Arbitrator partly decreed the claim of the respondent No. 1. He was advised that his claim for higher amount should have been awarded, hence he preferred an objection. In the objection one of the grounds taken was that the logbook had not been produced by the Railway and as the log-book was an important document for determining the controversy involved between the respondent No. 1 and the Railway, it should have been summoned by the Arbitrator. 4. From the order sheet, which was maintained by the Arbitrator during the arbitration proceedings, it appears that the respondent No. 1 had produced log-book which he was maintaining for establishing the supply of (Paras 7 and 8) bricks in respect of which he had made the claim. The large book was taken back by the respondent No. 1 after the arguments of the claimant had been heard by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator held that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to Rs. 3644.75 paise in full and final settlement of his claim. 5. It is admitted on all hands that the Arbitrator is not required to give reasons for the conclusion arrived at. In this case also he did not do so. The Arbitrator held that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to Rs. 3644.75 paise in full and final settlement of his claim. 5. It is admitted on all hands that the Arbitrator is not required to give reasons for the conclusion arrived at. In this case also he did not do so. But, it does appear that he considered the evidence of the parties and thereafter decreed the claim of the Contractor to the extent indicated above. 6. Sri Lalji Sinha, counsel for the Railways, urged that the court below committed an error in setting aside the award on a flimsy ground that the log-book since had not been produced by the Railways, therefore, the award was liable to be quashed. It was rightly contended by him that the log-book in possession of the Railways, was not summoned by the respondent No. 1. This is correct in our view. If the Arbitrator would have rejected the application for summoning of the documents that could be a ground for setting aside the award. 7. It appears from the order sheet maintained by the Arbitrator that the respondents had produced the log-book which he maintained and which was in his possession. It can be reasonably presumed that this log-book must have been taken into account by the Arbitrator while giving the award and, consequently, non production of the log-book by the Railways was of no consequence. The learned Civil Judge could not have set aside the award on this account. 8. We have noted above that the award was given partly in favour of respondent No. 1. The learned Civil Judge should not have set it aside in its entirety. The cause of respondent No. 1 has been prejudiced to a great extent by setting aside of the award. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the learned Civil Judge is set aside and the award is ordered to be a rule of the court. There shall be no order as to costs.