Hansaria, J. — This appeal is directed against an order passed by learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Gauhati dismissing the petition of the appellant filed under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for setting aside the award published on 27th day of February, 1975 by Lt. Col. Shri M.G. Athavale. 2. A dispute was referred to Shri Athavale for arbitration. This was pursuant to an agreement between the parties. Shri Athavale was appointed arbitrator on 31.5.73 and he entered on the reference on 7.6.73. The award was, however, published on 27.2.75 and as such it was much beyond the time visualised by clause 3 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, the Act), which has fixed a period of four months to make award alter entering on the reference. 3. 1'he sole ground urged by Shri Borthakur is that as the award was beyond the period visualised by clause 3 aforesaid, the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to make the award. In this connection, our attention has been invited by the learned counsel to Hari Krishna vs. Vaikunth Nath, AIR 1973 SC 2479 . A perusal of the aforesaid decision shows that an award can be passed beyond the period visualised by clause 3 of the First Schedule in - two cases first where the time for making the award is enlargeh by the Court, and secondly if there be a post reference consent to the enlargement of the time by the parties. This view was taken by the Apex Court by analysing sections 3 and 28 of the Act. 4. In the present case there was no admittedly enlargement of tinte by the Court. Shri Chetia has however drawn our attention to two communications emanating from the two parties whereby both of them had agreed to extension of time for making and publishing the award upto and including 28th February, 1975. The letter written by the appellant in this connection bears No. JSSC/40/SHL and is dated 3rd February, 1975, and that of the other side is letter No. (perhaps) 8600/ARB/126/ES dated 5th February, 1975. Though in the letter of the appellant, the year has teen mentioned as 1075'. the same is apparently a typing mistake for 1975'. It may be stated that there are on record other letters also of the parties extending from time to time the period of making award. 5. Though in the letter of the appellant, the year has teen mentioned as 1075'. the same is apparently a typing mistake for 1975'. It may be stated that there are on record other letters also of the parties extending from time to time the period of making award. 5. This being the position, we are satisfied that in the present case there was a post reference agreement between the parties to enlarge time upto 28th February, 1975. The award having been given and published on 27th February was thus within time. 6. No other point has been urged by Shri Borthakur. The appeal cannot therefore be accepted and the same is dismissed.