S. Haque, J.- M/s. Construction and Supply Company, Dibrugarh appeals against the judgment dated 30.5.1981 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh in Money Suit (Arbitration) No. 8 of 1978 refusing to set aside the award dated 29.9.75 made by the sole arbitrator in Case No. ARB/BSS/279, dated 1.3.1973. 2. The Union of India failed to pay the amount claimed by the appellant for the construction work of R. C. C. Pipe culverts done under the Agreement No. SE/TK/16, of 1962-63. Shri B. S. Sekhon was appointed as sale arbitrator by order dated 29.1.1973 of the Chief Engineer, C.P.W.D. at Calcutta. The Arbitrator made the award on 29.9,1975. 3. The appellant raised objection before the Assistant District Judge that the arbitrator misconduct the proceeding and acted without jurisdiction by making the award after expiry of statutory period and so, the award was void. Relying the decision reported in AIR 1973 Kerala 237 (State of Kerala vs. K.P. Paulose), the Asstt. District Judge held that the parties had submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and participated in the proceeding even after the stipulated period of four (4) months, and the time enlarged by the arbitrator was with the consent of the parties, and so, the award was not bad merely on the ground that extension of time for making award was not obtained from the Court under section 28 (1) of the Arbitration Act, and accordingly ordered the award to be made a rule of the Court under section 17 of the Arbitration Act and directed to draw up decree. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee submits that the arbitrator had no lawful jurisdiction to make the award after expiry of 4 months without the time being extended by the Court under section 28(1), and refers the case law the State of Punjab vs. Hardayal reported in AIR 1985 SC 920 in support of his contention. On the other hand learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. Saikh Chaud Mahammad submits that when the parties partici­pated the proceeding allowing the arbitrator to enlarge time and make the award, the time extended was with their consent which gave the jurisdiction to Arbitrator to make the award and it was not bad in law. 5. On the other hand learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Mr. Saikh Chaud Mahammad submits that when the parties partici­pated the proceeding allowing the arbitrator to enlarge time and make the award, the time extended was with their consent which gave the jurisdiction to Arbitrator to make the award and it was not bad in law. 5. Under clause 3 of the First Schedule of the Arbitration Act it is incumbent on the Arbitrator to make the award within four months after entering on the reference or after having been called upon to act by notice in writing from any party to the arbitration agreement or within such extended time as the Court may allow under section 28(1). Toe power is with the Court to extend time to submit award under section 28(1) beyond the period of four months prescribed under clause 3 of the First Schedule of the Arbitration Act. The sub-section (2) of section 28 also makes it clear that the Court alone has power to extend time, but it further provides that a clause in the arbitration agreement granting power to arbitrator to enlarge time shall be void and of no effect except when all the parties consent to such an enlargement and that too must be a post-reference consent. It is not open to the arbitrator to enlarge time at his pleasure to make award without consent of the parties to the agreement. A suo-moto enlargement of time by the arbitrator after entering upon the reference and parties submitting and participating in the proceeding enabling arbitrator to make award beyond the statutory period, the award would be invalid for want of jurisdiction and the parties shall not be precluded, for their conduct, to challenge the validity of the award. Conduct of the parties in the arbitration proceeding can not change the statute. 6. In the instant arbitration proceeding, time was not extended by the Court nor there was any provision in the arbitration agreement for extension of time, The arbitrator extended time suo-moto and the parties participated in the proceeding and the arbitrator made the award long after expiry of four months. Was the award valid ? 7. There were conflicting views by different High Courts on this point. Was the award valid ? 7. There were conflicting views by different High Courts on this point. It was held by some (AIR 1973 Kerala 237; AIR 1961 All 180 ; AIR 1975 M.P. 40 ; AIR 1966 Orissa 17) High Courts that if the parties, after expiry of four months, submit to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator and take part in the proceeding enabling him to make an award, it can not be said that the arbitrator acted without jurisdiction and in such contingency, the principle of waiver and estoppel would apply. But the Supreme Court has set at rest all the controversies / conflicts by its decision in the case reported in AIR 1985 SC 920 where it was held that; "law precludes parties from extending time after the matter has been referred to the arbitrator ; it will he contradiction in terms to hold that the same result can be brought about by the conduct of the parties. The age long established principle is that there can be no estoppel against a statute. It is true that the time to be fixed for making the award was initially one of agreement between the parties but it does not follow that in the face of a clear prohibition by law that the time fixed under cl. 3 of the First Schedule can only be extended by the court and not by the parties at any stage, it still remains a matter of agreement and the rule of estoppel operates. It need be hardly emphasied that the Act has injuncted the arbitrator to give an award within the prescribed period of four months unless the same is extended by the court. The arbitrator has no jurisdiction to make an sward after the fixed time. If the award made beyond the time is invalid the parties are not estopped by their conduct from challenging the award on the ground that it was made beyond time merely because of their having participated in the proceedings before arbitrator after the expiry of the prescribed period." 8. The above being the settled principle of law, the arbitrator in the instant proceeding had no jurisdiction to make award beyond four months from entering on the reference. The award made on 29.9.75 by the arbitrator was without jurisdiction and hence void. The appellant was competent to challenge the validity of the award. 9. The above being the settled principle of law, the arbitrator in the instant proceeding had no jurisdiction to make award beyond four months from entering on the reference. The award made on 29.9.75 by the arbitrator was without jurisdiction and hence void. The appellant was competent to challenge the validity of the award. 9. The impugned judgment dated 30.5.1981 is set aside and consequently the objection raised by the appellant in Money Suit (Arbitration) No. 8 of 1978 is allowed and the award dated 29.9.1975 made by the arbitrator is set aside. 10. Appeal allowed. No order as to costs. Send down the records. W. A. Shishak, J,- I agree.