JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal arises from the order dated Feb. 15, 1993 of the District Judge Ajmer whereby the award passed by the Arbitrator was made as the Rule of the Court. 2. A few relevant facts are required to be set out at the out set. Learned District Judge Ajmer received award dated Feb. 4, 1984 by post on March 30, 1992. Notices were issued by the learned Judge to the parties. Complete service of notices on the parties was effected on Sept. 4, 1992. Counsel for U.O.I. sought time to file objections. On Feb. 11, 1993 an application under section 151 Civil Procedure Code. read with section 14 Arbitration Act was filed by the counsel for U.O.I. stating therein that award was not filed legally. No notice under section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act as well as the evidence recorded, were not produced with the award. Proper stamp fee was also not paid. Therefore it was prayed that proper orders in that regard be passed. 3. The learned District Judge observed that award was passed on a stamp of Rs. 40/- and in the absence of notice under section 14(1) and the evidence, the award was not illegal and could not be rejected. As no body raised objection against the award within a stipulated period of 30 days, the learned judgment made award the rule of the court and passed a decree accordingly on Feb. 18, 1993. 4. Against this order the appellant has now preferred the appeal. 5. Mr. Manish Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant vigorously canvassed that the Arbitrators remitted a copy of the award to the appellant and on receipt of the award the appellant filed a petition under sections 14 and 17 of the Act before the Delhi High Court which was registered as suit No. 1473 A/1984. The notices were issued to the Arbitrators to file the award in the Delhi High Court. On 10.1.1989 Delhi High Court passed an order and the Arbitrators had become functus officio. But surprisingly enough the Arbitrators had filed a copy of the Award in the Court of District Judge Ajmer concealing the fact that the original award was lying with the Delhi High Court. 6. On 10.1.1989 Delhi High Court passed an order and the Arbitrators had become functus officio. But surprisingly enough the Arbitrators had filed a copy of the Award in the Court of District Judge Ajmer concealing the fact that the original award was lying with the Delhi High Court. 6. The contention of learned counsel is that in view of the fact that matter had already been adjudicated by the Delhi High Court the order impugned has become void and it should be treated as non-existent. The mischief has been played by the respondents intentionally concealing the material facts from the learned court below. The impugned order is hit by the doctrine of Res- judicata. An application under Order 41 Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code. was also filed by the appellant with the documents of the proceedings before the Delhi High Court. Mr. Bhandari placed reliance on the following:- (i) The reliable Water Supply Services v. U.O.I., AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2083 ; (ii) Raja Inderjit v. Amar Singh, AIR 1923 PC 128 ; (iii) Gopal Das v. S. Kesar Singh, AIR 1966 Jammu and Kashmir 133 ; 7. Mr. G.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and contended that after an award has been made a Rule of Court no appeal is maintainable. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. 9. The scheme of the Arbitration Act is to provide a domestic forum for speedy sand substantial justice, untrammeled by legal technicalities, by getting the dispute resolved by a person in whom the parties have full faith and confidence. The award given by such a person under the scheme of the Act can be assailed only on very limited ground. 10. The sum and substance of the arguments of Mr. Manish Bhandari, the learned counsel is that the respondent after playing fraud on the court below obtained the impugned order. It was next contended that the appeal may be treated as revision and after accepting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code. the matter may be remitted back to the court below for passing a fresh order in the light of the documents. 11. It was next contended that the appeal may be treated as revision and after accepting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code. the matter may be remitted back to the court below for passing a fresh order in the light of the documents. 11. The Reliable Water Supply Service (supra) was the case where their Lordships of the Supreme Court propounded that High Court can convert an appeal into a revision when the court whose order is appealed against has illegally exercised its jurisdiction. 12. In Raja Inderjit v. Bahadur Singh (supra) the Privy Council indicated that Rules of Procedure are not made for the purpose of hindering justice. The appellate court may for substantial justice allow the documents to be produced under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC. 13. In Vineet Kumar v. Smt. Bhagwan Dei, AIR 1978 Allahabad 312 it was held that after an award has been made the rule of the court and a decree has been passed thereon, then a suit can be maintained to question the decree on the ground of fraud. 14. Mool Chand v. Manak Chand, RLW 1970 page 233 was the case where this court propounded that if a decree is found to have been obtained by fraud, whatever may be the basis of the decree it is liable to be set aside by a regular suit. There is no specific prohibition containing in section 32 barring such a suit. 15. In Hindustan Construction Co. v. Union of India, AIR 1967 Supreme Court 526 it was held by the Apex Court that "It is the duty of the arbitrator or the umpire to file the award when called upon to do so. The arbitrator has to file either the original or the certified or the signed copy of the award." 16. A perusal of the file of the court below revealed that the Arbitrators have filed the signed copy of the award. The appellant U.O.I. was represented by the counsel before the (SCC) objections to the award were raised. Only an application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. read with Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act was filed which was properly dealt with by the court. 17. The appellant U.O.I. was represented by the counsel before the (SCC) objections to the award were raised. Only an application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code. read with Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act was filed which was properly dealt with by the court. 17. It is necessary at this juncture to refer section 17 of the Arbitration Act which reads as under:- "When the court sees no cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to arbitration for reconsideration or to set aside the award, the court shall, after the time for making an application to set aside the award has expired, or such application having been made, after refusing it, proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award, and upon the judgment so pronounced a decree shall follow and no appeal shall lie from such decree except on the ground that it is in excess of or not otherwise in accordance with the award." (Emphasis supplied) 18. Therefore the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant are not tenable in this appeal, in view of section 17 of the Act. The appeal, thus is not maintainable. As no jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned court below. I do not thing it proper to convert this appeal into revision. The appellant if it so chooses can institute a civil suit for setting aside the impugned order and the decree in view of ratio propounded by this court in Moot Chand's case (supra) and by the Allahabad High Court in Vineet Kumar's case (supra). Accordingly I see no good reason to accept the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 Civil Procedure Code. The documents filed with the application can be made basis of the civil suit. 19. In the result the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The record of the case be sent back forthwith. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******