JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J. (Oral): Briefly the facts arc that the plaintiff M/s Babu Ram Sud and Sons entered into an agreement with the defendant Union of India through The Garrison Engineer (MES) Kasauli for the work of Provision of site clearance and development of land at Sabathu vide contract No. GEK -42/87-88. The said agreement was executed by the plaintiff. A dispute arose between the parties relating to the amounts claimed by the plaintiff, which according to the case of the defendant, were highly exorbitant and were not acceptable. Resultantly the case was referred to the Arbitrator in terms of the contract agreement for adjudication by him. Pursuant thereto Lt. Col. B. K. Sharma SOI Design HQ Chief Engineer Chandigarh Zone was appointed as Arbitrator, who ultimately gave his award on 23.10.1992. 2. The present objections have been filed by the defendant challenging the award. Apart from various objections against the award on the merits of the same, some objections of a preliminary nature have been raised by the defendant. These, amongst others, are that the award suffers from an error of law on the face of the record, the Arbitrator having acted beyond jurisdiction and misconducted himself and the proceedings, besides not having given reasoned award. It has also been objected that none of the claims falls under the definition of Dispute. The sum and substance of the other objections of a preliminary nature is that the Arbitrator has gone beyond the scope of the agreement between the parties as also the reference made to him for adjudication of the dispute between them. 3. In the reply filed by the plaintiff, it has been pleaded that the very fact that the matters had been resisted by the objector before the Arbitrator shows the existence of disputes between the parties. Further, the details of the disputes had also been mentioned before the Chief Engineer who made a reference to the Arbitrator. *The case of the plaintiff is that all payments during the pendency of the work awarded to him were only advance payments, thus he could raise the dispute in respect of non- payment for the extra works executed by him when payment for the same was not made or provided for even in the final bill. *The case of the plaintiff is that all payments during the pendency of the work awarded to him were only advance payments, thus he could raise the dispute in respect of non- payment for the extra works executed by him when payment for the same was not made or provided for even in the final bill. The pleas of the defendant-objector that the Arbitrator has acted beyond the scope of the agreement between the parties and the reference made to him by the competent authority have also been controverted. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the award of the Arbitrator is bad on the ground of error of law apparent on the face of record ? If so, its effect. ...OP Objector. 2. Whether the Arbitrator has acted beyond jurisdiction and mis-conducted himself in the proceedings ? ...OP Objector. 5. Both the parties have adduced evidence in the shape of affidavits before this Court. Their learned counsel have been heard at length and the record has been perused. Findings are as under:- Issues No. 1 and 2: 6. Both these issues being inter-connected, are being taken up together. It has been submitted by Shri Sureshwar Thakur, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Union of India that the Arbitrator has acted beyond his jurisdiction in considering the claims which did not form part of the agreement or the reference made to him. There is thus, an error of law apparent on the face of the Arbitrators award and he has, therefore, mis-conducted himself the proceedings. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Shri J. S. Bhogal, learned counsel for the plaintiff that there is neither any error of jurisdiction or of law, not there is any mis-conduct apparent from the Arbitrators award. Therefore, the objections are mis-conceived. 7. A bare perusal of the award shows that the Arbitrator has discussed the claims made before him on before him on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the contest made to the same by the defendant. He has, thereafter, proceeded to give his findings in respect of each claim made before him. Therefore, the objections are mis-conceived. 7. A bare perusal of the award shows that the Arbitrator has discussed the claims made before him on before him on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the contest made to the same by the defendant. He has, thereafter, proceeded to give his findings in respect of each claim made before him. In this connection, the following para of the impugned award can be referred to ascertain the process of reasoning and the conclusion arrived thereby by the Arbitrator:- "I have heard both the parties on the issues raised and the stand taken by both the parties. I have perused all the documents produced before me, their oral arguments and inspection of site and find that there is substance in the submission of the claimant - contractors. The provision of the tender cannot be ignored and there had been changes of specifications at site. The excavation has been done varying upto 12 meter depth and the submissions of the claimants stand substantiated. As per pleadings in defence, the GE stated that he did not give any order the execution of the job as it exists at site but has net been able to put up any convincing reply as to why the respondent Union of India supervisory staff at site could not react to the work being carried out at site by the contractor without objection from the staff or from the Garrison Engineer which clearly indicates that the work has been carried out by the contractor at the site with the concurrence of the supervisory staff of the Union of India." 8. It is thus manifest that whatever has been awarded by the Arbitrator is not beyond the scope of the agreement or the reference made to him by the competent authority. The supervisory staff of the defendant did not raise any objection to the work being carried out at the site by the plaintiff-contractor. This means that they acquiesced in the same. In this situation, the defendant cannot now turn round and say that the plaintiff carried out the work beyond what was provided for in the agreement, and that the Arbitrator erred in awarding the amounts thus claimed by him. 9. This means that they acquiesced in the same. In this situation, the defendant cannot now turn round and say that the plaintiff carried out the work beyond what was provided for in the agreement, and that the Arbitrator erred in awarding the amounts thus claimed by him. 9. It has also been submitted on behalf of the defendant-objector that the Arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction in adjudicating the claim for interest and cost of reference to Arbitrator, as he was not authorised to do so. However, it is not disputed that the agreement is silent as regards awarding interest in. case of any dispute arising between the parties and referring the same for adjudication to the Arbitrator. In the circumstances, it has to be presumed that interest was implied as part of the terms of the agreement, therefore, the Arbitrator has the power to award pendent lite interest, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case reported as Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa & Ors. v. G.C. Roy, AIR 1992 SC 732. Therefore, there is no merit in this objection also. 10. Coming now to the objections which have been raised against the award in respect of the individual claims adjudicated by him, it is settled law that Court is not to re-appraise or appreciate the evidence led before the Arbitrator by the parties to the dispute and adjudication of the claims vis-a-vis the evidence. 11. In view of the above discussion it must be held that under issue No. l the award of the Arbitrator does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record and under issue No.2 that the Arbitrator has not acted beyond jurisdiction, nor mis-conducted himself in the proceedings. Both these issues are decided accordingly. 12. Consequently, the objections filed by the defendant are without any merit and arc thus dismissed. The award of the Arbitrator is hereby made a rule of the Court, with the modification that the plaintiff is entitled to future interest on the awarded amount @ of 12% per annum from the date of the award till the date of realisation. However, there will be no order as to costs of these proceedings. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.