Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 5.7.96 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Tinsukia in Misc (Arbitration) Case No.50 of 1989 thereby holding that as per finding of the Arbitrator, the petitioner (respondent herein) was entitled to payment of Rs. 1,10,000/- being the losses suffered due to fire. He is also entitled interest @ 12% per annum calculated from 19.10.1974. There was also been awarded cost of Rs. 5,000/- with a direction to the appellant to make payment within 2 months from the date of order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant streneously urged that the trial Court categorically accepted the award as made by the Arbitrator without considering the material on record. According to him the impugned judgment was exparte without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Learned counsel also explained that the judgment was exparte in the sense that the counsel for the appellant did not appear in the proceeding, but his absence could not be construed as if the appellant had abandondly absent in the proceeding, therefore the Court is in error of disposing the case in absence of the appellant without even issuing a notice to it. 4. Now few basic facts need be noted : The respondent had insured his stock in trade lying in the shop against loss or damage by fire. A fire did take place on 19th October, 1974 and the appellant laid his claim amounting to Rs. 1,25,000/-. The insurer denied the entire claim on the ground that the goods were in the godown, and not in the shop. Thus arose a difference. Clause 18 of the agreement provides that if there be any difference relating to the amount of loss or damage the same is required to be referred to the decision of an Arbitrator. Initially this reference has been denied on the ground that the dispute did not really relate to the amount of loss or damage as such but to the liability of the insurer to reimburse the respondent even if the goods be in the godown. 5. It was subject matter of challenge in an earlier appeal Misc. Initially this reference has been denied on the ground that the dispute did not really relate to the amount of loss or damage as such but to the liability of the insurer to reimburse the respondent even if the goods be in the godown. 5. It was subject matter of challenge in an earlier appeal Misc. Appeal (First) 5 of 1979 decided on 6.8.88 making the following directions : "In view of what has been stated above, I would think that a case for referring the matter to the Arbitrator as visualised by clause 18 of the agreement has been made out and accordingly I would order for appointment of arbitrator (s). The arbitrator (s) would decide whether there was any loss of the goods/stocks in the shop due to fire and thereafter proceed in accordance with law" 6. Accordingly Arbitrators as nominated by the parties were appointed. The trial Court having gone through the report of the Arbitrators, accepted the report and as per finding of the Arbitrator passed the impugned order. Hence this appeal under section 37 of the Arbitrator arid Conciliation Act; 1996. 7. Although it has been contended that the matter proceeded exparte, on appellant own showing it was not as if the appellant had no notice, it was the alleged fault of the counsel appearing for the appellant. There is no material on record to show nor such details furnished as to infer that the appellant (s) counsel was really at fault. It was also strenuously urged that the appellant having made payment, should get an opportunity of hearing, it is not a question of having made payment, the fact of the matter is that it was an execution of decree. But the appellant suppressing the material fact as regards of the execution of the decree on 8.11.96 and the executing Court's order dated 19.11.96 approached this Court and this Court while admitting the appeal on 22.11.96 in Misc. Case No.3011 of 1996 by order dated 22 11.96 the appellant obtained a stay order against the recovery or payment of the aforesaid amount as ordered by the trial Court. This order was passed without hearing the Caveator decree-holder who has filed his Caveat on 14.11.96 being Misc. Case No.313 of 1996. There is yet another Misc. Case No.3011 of 1996 by order dated 22 11.96 the appellant obtained a stay order against the recovery or payment of the aforesaid amount as ordered by the trial Court. This order was passed without hearing the Caveator decree-holder who has filed his Caveat on 14.11.96 being Misc. Case No.313 of 1996. There is yet another Misc. Petition No.31 of 1997 filed on 16.12.96 purporting to be a review petition of the order dated 6.12.96 passed if Misc. Case No.312 of 1996. This review petition was listed on 6.6.97 when the learned counsel appearing for the appellant stated that he did not want to press the review petition, it is accordingly dismissed. 8. It is significant to note that the counsel for the appellant despite service of notice did not appear on 6.12.96 and ft is apparent that the stay order was obtained by the appellant suppressing the material fact and taking advantage of a different Bench. Now in these circumstances there is no force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the order passed by the trial Court was exparte. The allegation of default as alleged against the counsel, is not borne out front the records, on the other hand the appellant's conduct as reflected in the misc. proceedings itself shows that how and in what light manner these self serving allegations are made. 9. In the foregoing discussions and reasons this appeal is liable to be dismissed, 1 it is accordingly, dismissed with cost. Counsel fee Rs.2,000/- payable by the appellant.