Usha Mehra, J. (Oral) ( 1 ) PARTIES entered into an agreement. The said Agreement contained an arbigration clause. Pursuance thereto, in case of disputes and difference, the aggrieved party could invoke the provision of arbitration clause. The petitioner herein being aggreived by the deductions made by the respondent invoked the arbitration clause. The persona designata appointed Shri R. K. Gupta, respondent No. 2 as the sole arbitrator. The said arbitrator after hearing the petitioner and respondent No. 1 made and published his award dated 6th August,1990. The petitioner filed an application under Section 14 read with Sections 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter called as act ) asking that the said award be filed by respondent No. 2 and thereafter be made rule of the Court. ( 2 ) PURSUANCE to the notice issued by this Court, the arbitrator filed his award. Notice of the filing of the award was issued to the parties. Petitioner chose not to file objections. However, respondent/ UOI has filed objections which are listed as IA. No-3759/91. ( 3 ) THE main objection raised by the respondent is regarding withholding of the amount of Rs. 7. 55 lakhs. The arbitrator has awarded the amount which according to objector was not justified. The petitioner herein was asked vide respondent s letter dated 23rd August,1990 to furnish the details of withholding of the amount of Rs. 7. 55 lakhs. In reply thereto, the petitioner vide its letter dated 28th August,1990 admitted that amount of Rs. 7. 55 lakhs was not withheld from his bills by the Controller of Accounts, and therefore, the awarding of this amount by the arbitrator is not justified. The award on the fact of it is, therefore, bad. ( 4 ) ON the other hand counsel for the petitioner refutes this objection on the ground that these letters were never placed before the Arbitrator nor any such argument was advanced before the Arbitrator. On the contrary parties admitted before the arbitrator that there was a deduction from the bills of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 7. 55 lakhs by the purchaser i. e. Director General of Supplies and Disposal. The arbitrator after taking into account the admitted position made and published the award. Arbitrator has given reasoned award. No error in the same has been pointed out. 7. 55 lakhs by the purchaser i. e. Director General of Supplies and Disposal. The arbitrator after taking into account the admitted position made and published the award. Arbitrator has given reasoned award. No error in the same has been pointed out. A document which was not placed before the arbitrator, that party cannot now be allowed to rely on the same in order to infer error in the award of the arbitrator. There is in fact no error pointed out in the award. What the objector now wants is that this Court should take fresh evidence and decide the case. This is not permissible. This document cannot now be produced nor can be relied by this Court in order to set aside an award because this Court is not sitting as a court of appeal. If this document had been placed before the arbitrator, the petitioner would have got an opportunity to explain the same. Having not pleaded nor relied before the arbitrator, the objector cannot now make it as a base to find error in the award. ( 5 ) I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is an admitted case of the objector that these two letters were not placed before the arbitrator. The reading of the award shows that both the parties admitted before the arbitrator that an amount of Rs. 7. 55 lakhs was deducted by the purchaser from the pending bills of the contractor under running contract No. 7544 dated 24th June,1967 and the Contract dated 31st March, 1967. Bifurcation of this amount was not given contractwise by either party. Therefore, the arbitrator after taking into account various factors gave a common award in both the cases. He also took into consideration the price under the Book Examination Clause and other relevant clauses of the agreement,namely. Clauses 17-F, 20 and 21 of the Agreement. After analysing the submission made by the parties and the evidence produced before him, he made and published his award. It was an admitted case of the objector before the arbitrator that out of Rs. 7. 55 lakhs a sum of Rs. 5,09,631. 36 paise had already been paid. Clauses 17-F, 20 and 21 of the Agreement. After analysing the submission made by the parties and the evidence produced before him, he made and published his award. It was an admitted case of the objector before the arbitrator that out of Rs. 7. 55 lakhs a sum of Rs. 5,09,631. 36 paise had already been paid. The dispute was of the balance amount, which was tobe adjudicated by him and he after considering the facts and terms of the agreement held that petitioner/contrac- tor was entitled to the balance amount of Rs. 2,45,368. 64 paise. This is the amount he ordered to be refunded by the respondent/objector. At this stage, the objector cannot rely on these documents which were neither placed before the arbitrator nor the arbitrator had any opportunity to consider the same. Moreover, in view of the admitted facts on record that an amount of Rs. 5,09,631. 36 paise had already been refunded in favour of the petitioner and balance amount being admitted, I see no error in the award of the arbitrator. This Court is not sitting as a court of appeal on the award made and published by the arbitrator, nor can this Court entertain any document now in order to set aside the award. I find no merits in the objections. The same are accordingly rejected. The award made and published by the arbitrator is hereby made a rule of the Court. The petitioner will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% from the date of award till realisation.