JUDGMENT D.Raju, C.J. : The above appeal has been filed against the judgment and final order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul & Spiti Districts at Mandi dated 29.6.1990 in CMA No. 46/88 where under the First Appellate Court has chosen to set aside the order of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi dated 16.8.1988 in Arbitration case No. 3/87, in which the learned Senior Sub Judge chose to make the award dated 26.11.1986 for Rs. 7987.45 the rule of court and confined the rule of Court to the extent of Rs. 2991.35. 2. The deceased appellant, who was a registered Contractor with the respondent was given some work and it could not have been carried out in the manner it was expected to and this resulted in a dispute between the parties and ultimately it led to a Reference to the Superintending Engineer (Arbitration). The Arbitrator appears to have announced the award on 26.11.1986 by awarding a sum of Rs. 8451.10 in favour of the appellant and a sum of Rs. 463.65 in favour of the respondent herein and after adjusting the said amounts, the net amount to be paid to the appellant by the respondent was fixed at Rs. 79S7.45. Subsequent to this, it appears realising that an error has crept in to the award on account of a mistaken omission, the Arbitrator has appended an explanatory note to the award, which was announced on 26.11.1986 by directing the deletion of a sum of Rs.. 4996.10 and holding that the appellant would be entitled to really a sum of Rs. 2991.35. The appellant, aggrieved has instituted an arbitration case No.3/87 objecting to the action of the Arbitrator in respect of the rectification effected by appending an explanatory note. The parties before the learned Senior Sub Judge. Mandi projected their respective claims and while allowing the objections of the appellant, the learned Senior Sub Judge set aside the explanatory memorandum dated 31.12.1986 appended to the award and made the award dated 26.11.1986 for a sum of Rs. 7987.45 the rule of Court and directed a decree to be passed accordingly. 3. Aggrieved the respondent herein filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge in CMA No.46 of 1988. The learned first Appellate Judge found, as a fact, that the inclusion of a sum of Rs. 7987.45 the rule of Court and directed a decree to be passed accordingly. 3. Aggrieved the respondent herein filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge in CMA No.46 of 1988. The learned first Appellate Judge found, as a fact, that the inclusion of a sum of Rs. 4996.10 in the original award dated 26.11.1986 by the Arbitrator as a sum due also to the appellant was a mistake apparent on the record and that, therefore, the Arbitrator could not be held to have committed any mis- conduct in appending the explanatory memorandum clarifying the circumstances and consequently while allowing the appeal confined the rule of Court to the extent of Rs. 2991.35. It may be stated at this stage, as found noticed by the learned first .Appellate Judge in paragraph 8 of the judgment that this amount of Rs. 4996.10 was initially levied as penalty by the Department of the Contractor by the letter of the Executive Engineer, Sundernagar dated 16.7.1984 invoking the powers under Clauses 2 and 3 of the agreement, but the appellant-Contractor has not actually paid such amount so as to get an award for repayment of the sum by the Department to him or to have the said sum adjusted at the time of final payment on settlement of accounts. The award initially made appears to have been for the larger sum on a mistaken impression that the Contractor has paid a sum of Rs. 4996.10 to the Executive Engineer and this was sought to be rectified by the supplemental memorandum appended to the award. Felt aggrieved, the contractor has filed the above appeal. 4. Mr. L.C. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the appellant -Contractor placing reliance upon the decision reported in Rikhabdass v. Bal-labhdas & Ors. AIR 1962 S.C. 551 contended that once the award has been made by the Arbitrator, he becomes functus officio and that thereafter he had no right to modify or correct the award and consequently the supplemental memorandum appended to the original award is without jurisdiction and, therefore, the learned Senior Sub Judge was right in sustaining the objection of the appellant and allowing the claim in its entirety as per the original award dated 26.11.1986 by making it the rule of Court for the entire sum of Rs. 7987.46. 7987.46. Argued the learned counsel further that the learned First Appellate Judge committed a grave error in mis-construing the scope and powers as well as the authority of the Arbitrator to do so and reducing the sum in respect of which the rule of court has to be issued to a sum of Rs. 2991.35. The learned counsel invited our attention to the respective orders passed by the Courts below in this regard. 5. Per contra, the learned Advocate General while placing reliance upon the decisions reported in Vishwanath Sood v. Union of India & Anr., (1989) 1 SC.C 657 and Juggilal Kamlapat v. General Fibre Dealers, AIR 1962 S.C. 1123 with equal force contended that the error committed by the Arbitrator in passing the initial-award was a patent one on account of a slip or omission and that, therefore, it was well within the competency and authority of the Arbitrator to correct it by issuing a supplemental memorandum appended to the original award and clarifying the position. The learned Advocate General further contended that as long as it is not the case of the appellant that he did pay the sum of Rs. 4996.10 levied as penalty to the Department, there is no justice or justification in law for the appellant to Gave the rule of Court issued m respect of the said sum also and to that extent the learned Senior Sub Judge committed an error, which has been rightly corrected and set right by the learned First Appellate Judge and consequently no interference is called for in this appeal at the instance of die contractor. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. In our view, the submission that the Arbitrator on pronouncing the award becomes functus officio cannot be accepted to be an absolute rule of invariable application and the provisions contained in Section I3(d) enables the Arbitrator to correct, in an award, any clerical mistake or error arising from any accidental slip or omission. Therefore, as rightly contended for the respondent, it cannot be said to be an absolute rule that in all cases and for all purposes the Arbitrator becomes functus officio and in our view Section 13(d) engrafts an exception to such a general principle of law normally assumed, in such cases. Therefore, as rightly contended for the respondent, it cannot be said to be an absolute rule that in all cases and for all purposes the Arbitrator becomes functus officio and in our view Section 13(d) engrafts an exception to such a general principle of law normally assumed, in such cases. While that be the position, it becomes , necessary to consider whether the correction attempted to be made, by appending a supplemental memorandum to the award, constitute one of any clerical mistake or error arising from any accidental slip or omission though the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that it cannot be said to be a clerical mistake. We cannot at the same time over-look the statutory provision, which enables correction by the Arbitrator even in respect of an error arising from any "accidental slip or omission". If the Arbitrator in the initial award has chose to include a sum of Rs.- 4996.10 which though was imposed as a penalty, by the Department has not been duly and actually paid but included as a sum due in restitution to the Contractor from the Department, we fail to see how it could not be corrected because such a mistake is a mistake arising on account of a serious omission due to a slip on the part of the Arbitrator, which he is entitled to correct in exercise of his powers under Section 13(d) of the Act. Therefore, as long as it is not proved before any of the Courts below that the appellant- Contractor did part with the sum of penalty persuant to the order dated 16.7.1984, there is no right or justification for him to have a rule of court to recover the said amount inspite of the clarificatory memorandum I appended to the award by the Arbitrator in exercise of his undoubted powers I to correct under Section 13(d) of the Act Therefore, we see no error, whatsoever, in the judgment of the learned First Appellate Judge. 7. That apart even for the other reason which we would adduce now, no exception could be taken to the judgment and order passed by the learned First Appellate Judge, in this case .The case on hand has reached a stage where it does not lie merely with the award of the Arbitrator. 7. That apart even for the other reason which we would adduce now, no exception could be taken to the judgment and order passed by the learned First Appellate Judge, in this case .The case on hand has reached a stage where it does not lie merely with the award of the Arbitrator. The award has to be made a rule of Court to be enforced unless the party which has suffered the award has complied with the terms of the award even without or before making it a rule of Court. In this case, the learned Senior Sub Judge, Mandi has chosen to deal with a claim for making the award rule of the Court while dealing with the objections to the award projected by the appellant-Contractor. It is not as though in such cases the court is obliged to mechanically and automatically make the award a rule of Court and the claim of the contesting parties has to be gone into and a judgment has to be passed Section 17 of the Act would go to show that where the court sees no, cause to remit the award or any of the matters referred to the arbitrator 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, pronounce the judgment according to the award. In this case, in view of the contesting claims of both the parties before the Court, the learned Senior Sub Judge had a duty and obligation to pronounce upon the legality and propriety of the award passed. In that process also it becomes inevitably necessary for the learned Senior Sub Judge to adjudicate upon the tenability of the objections or the claims of the parties before him. If in doing so, the learned Senior Sub Judge has committed an error, it was well within the rights of the First Appellate Judge as the Appellate Court to set right the mistake or error committed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, in passing a decree in terms of the award in its original condition ignoring the supplemental memorandum appended by way of correction to the original award. The learned First Appellate Judge has, therefore, .every right to interfere with the; orders passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge and while accepting the factual position, which has been highlighted in the Supplemental memorandum to the original award and finding it as a fact that no such amount could be made by the Department to be paid to the appellant - Contractor, and for that reason interfere with the order of the learned Senior Sub Judge to that extent and confine the rule of Court to only a sum of Rs. 2991.35. For this reason also, we are of the view that the appellant cannot successfully challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned First Appellate Judge. 8. For all the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.