A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants seeks permission to delete respondent No. 2 i. e. State Bank of India, Chikhli Branch, Chikhli, Dt: Valsad in both the appeals. Permission granted. Respondent No. 2 stands deleted. ( 2 ) ADMIT. Learned counsel Mr. K. G. Sukhwani waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. At the request of and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, both the appeals are ordered to be heard today finally. ( 3 ) BOTH these appeals arise out of judgment and decree passed in Special Civil Suit no. 24/86 by the court of Civil Judge (S. D.) Himatnagar. The respondent plaintiff firm filed civil suit praying for appointment of arbitrator in terms of the agreement No. LCB-21/84-85 in connection with providing for concrete apron at D/s of Bucket portion of Mazam Spillway for M. I. S. The plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and servants from encashing the bank guarantee for Rs. 38. 000/- furnished by the plaintiff to defendant No. 3 i. e. State Bank of India, chikhli Branch, Chikhli (It may be noted that the Bank has been deleted as party respondent from this appeal ). The plaintiff also prayed for injunction restraining the defendants from executing and implementing the order dated January 29,1986 passed by the Executive Engineer, IP Division No. 2 by which he ordered recovery and/or adjustment of certain amount. The suit was filed under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The suit has been filed on March 1, 1986. In the suit, the appellants original defendants Nos. 1 and 2 appeared and resisted the same on facts as well as on law points. The defendants also Filed their counter claim for Rs. 7,08,022. 87 ps. By ex. 41 dated october 18,1986 the plaintiff prayed for appointing an arbitrator. In the said purshis, the plaintiff also stated that so long as the arbitration proceedings remained pending, the plaintiff will continue to renew the bank guarantee furnished to the defendants. The trial court, as per order dated January 1, 1987 directed to appoint Chief Engineer and Joint secretary in Building and Communication Department of the Government of Gujarat Mr. M. S. lyangar or his successor in office as the sole arbitrator. Before the Arbitrator, the parties appeared and put up their claims. The trial court, as per order dated January 1, 1987 directed to appoint Chief Engineer and Joint secretary in Building and Communication Department of the Government of Gujarat Mr. M. S. lyangar or his successor in office as the sole arbitrator. Before the Arbitrator, the parties appeared and put up their claims. The Arbitrator submitted his award on December 31,1993. As per the award, the counter claim submitted by the appellants defendants was dismissed to the major extent The counter claim was allowed to the extent of Rs. 1,02,625/- (Rupees one lac two thousand six hundred and twenty five only) while the claim of the plaintiff was allowed to the extent of Rs. 3,46,164/- (Rupees three lacs fodrtysix thousand one hundred and sixtyfour only ). The trial court passed decree in terms of the award as per its judgment and order dated February 15, 1994. It is against this judgment and decree that these two appeals have been filed. First Appeal No. 1951 of 1994 is filed against the decree passed in the suit while first appeal No. 2373 of 1994 is filed against the rejection of counter claim of the appellants defendants. ( 4 ) IT is an undisputed position that against the award filed by the Arbitrator, the appellants submitted objections Ex. 107 on January 29, 1994. Still, however, the learned judge has observed in his judgment as follows: "copies of this award was furnished to the parties even though the parties have not filed their objection or consent in this proceeding. " thus the judgment and award is passed on the basis that no objections were filed to the award passed by the Arbitrator. This is factually not correct. The learned Judge has not considered the objections filed by the appellants against the award submitted by the arbitrator. On this ground alone, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is required to be reversed and set aside inasmuch as the objections filed by the appellants are required to be considered in accordance with law and decision thereon is required to be given by the trial court. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid position, the judgment and decree dated February 15,1994 passed by the trial court is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the trial court for proceeding further in accordance with law. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid position, the judgment and decree dated February 15,1994 passed by the trial court is required to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the trial court for proceeding further in accordance with law. The trial court will see to it that copy of the objections Ex. 107 filed by the appellants herein is served upon the original plaintiff and the plaintiff is given adequate and reasonable opportunity to have its say in respect of the award filed by the Arbitrator and also as regards the objections filed by the appellant original defendants. After giving reasonable opportunity to both the sides, the trial court shall proceed further in accordance with law for consideration of the objections submitted by the appellants. ( 6 ) IN the result, both the appeals are allowed. The judgment and decree dated february 15,1994 passed by the trial court in Spl. Civil Suit No. 24 of 1986 is reversed and set aside. The suit is remanded to the trial court for proceeding further in accordance with law. Both the appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. ( 7 ) OFFICE is directed to send the R and P of the suit to trial court immediately. .