JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup; J.: Brief facts of the case arc that the plaintiff M/S S.N.Seth, hereinafter called the Contractor, was allotted work by the defendant Union of India through the Garrison Engineer (AF), Chandigarh? herein after called the Objector, for provision of Basket Ball Ground, Hard Standing and Covered Ventilated Enclosures at Air Force Station, Kasauli. Certain differences arose between the two parties out of the contract in writing in respect of the above said work allotted to the Contractor by the objector. These differences were referred for arbitration by the Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Zone, Chandigarh on 31.5.1993 to the Sole Arbitrator, namely, Shri K.S.Jodhka (Colonel). Ultimately, the said Arbitrator gave his Award in favour of the Contractor on 28.7.1994. The said Award has been sent/filed in this Court to be made a Rule of the Court. Objections to the Award have been filed by the Union of India, which arc the subject matter in the present suit. 2. When the objections were taken up for consideration by this Court today, it has been stated by Shri Sureshwar Thakur, appearing on behalf of the objector that the amount awarded by the Arbitrator in favour of the Contractor is less than Rs.5.00 lacs, therefore, this Court does not have the pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the present objections. On the other hand, Shri K.D.Sood, learned counsel for the Contractor has submitted that in order to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction, it is the reference of the original dispute and the subject matter thereof, which has to be taken into consideration, and not the amount awarded by the Arbirator, in order to determine the pecuniary jurisdiction. 3. Admittedly, the subject matter of reference and the various amounts claimed under different heads by the Contractor in totality arc above Rs.5.00 lacs. In this connection, the attention of the Court has been drawn to the definition of Court as given in Section 2(c) of the Arbiration Act, 1940, and also Section 31(1) of said Act. Reading both these provisions together, it is quite clear that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court is co-related to the reference of the original dispute, and not to the amount awarded by the Arbirator. Support for this conclusion can be found from two reported decisions of the High Court of Punjab (as it then was) and the Delhi High Court. Reading both these provisions together, it is quite clear that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court is co-related to the reference of the original dispute, and not to the amount awarded by the Arbirator. Support for this conclusion can be found from two reported decisions of the High Court of Punjab (as it then was) and the Delhi High Court. They are, Inder Chand v. Poor an Chand, AIR 1959 Punjab 614 and S. Surrinder Singh Rosha v. Rathi Steels, AIR 1976 Delhi 261, respectively. In both these authorities, it is laid down that in order to determine the question of jurisdiction of the Court under the Arbitration Act, it must be ascertained what the question arc, form the subject matter of the reference to arbitration. Applying this ratio to the facts of the present case, it will be seen that the subject matter of reference to arbitration is admittedly more than Rs.5.00 lacs. No ruling to the contrary having been cited at the Bar before this Court, it must be held that considering the reference in the present case which is subject matter of arbitration, this Court has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the present objections. 4. A notice regarding filing of the award in the present case was admittedly served on the objector on 13.1.1995. The objections have been filed on 3.4.1995, as is apparent from the stamp of the Registry affixed on the same. The objections are thus beyond the period of limitation from the date of receipt of the notice of the filing of the award from this Court. There is no application for condoning the delay, nor has any ground been made out at the time of arguments for extending the period of limitation. Thus, viewed from any angle, the objections are barred by time. They are liable to be dismissed on that short ground. 5. Resultantly, the objections of the defendant are dismissed as being time-barred. In consequence, the award of the Arbitrator dated 28-7-1994 is made a Rule of the Court. Decree be prepared accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.