Judgement The judgment and order dated 11-4-1997 passed by the learned District Judge/Addl. Deputy Commissioner at Shillong in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1 (T) of 1996, dismissing the appeal of the present petitioner on the ground of non-maintainability of it, is the subject matter under challenge in this Revision Petition under Rule 36A of the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 and Rule 27 of the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts of the case in a short compass are as hereunder :- A contract agreement being No. CWE/SHL/3 of 86-87 was entered amongst the parties for Provn. of Md Accn. for Defence Civilians at SE Falls, Shillong, with original date of commencement and completion as 04-08-86 and 03-08-88 respectively. As the work could not be completed within the prescribed period and time for execution of the work was extended up to 16-8-1989, but the work was finally completed on 31-8-1989. In the meantime, a dispute arose between the parties and, as such, the respondent invoked arbitration for adjudication of such dispute and thereafter, the matter was referred to arbitration of a sole arbitrator and after hearing the parties and considering the case and nature of disputes, the arbitrator concerned published his award on 22-4-1992. As the appellant is not satisfied with the award, an application under Section 30 read with Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, was filed on 6-7-1992 i.e. within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of notices of the filing of the original award. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court namely, the Asstt. to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, has made the award the Rule of the Court under the related impugned order dated 27-6-95 passed in (ARB) Misc. Case No. 74 (T) 92 thus decreeing the case under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and making the award a Rule of the Court vide decree dated 28-6-95. Being dissatisfied with the order of 27-6-95 passed by the learned Asstt. to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong/Trial Court, the present appellant preferred an appeal under Rule 24 of the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950 against the said order of 27-6-95 under a related appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1 (T) 96 before the Court of the learned District Judge/Addl. to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong/Trial Court, the present appellant preferred an appeal under Rule 24 of the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950 against the said order of 27-6-95 under a related appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1 (T) 96 before the Court of the learned District Judge/Addl. Deputy Commissioner at Shillong. The learned District Judge/Addl. Deputy Commissioner at Shillong, upon hearing the parties dismissed the appeal by holding that the appeal was found to be beyond the period of limitation of 30 days and the same is not maintainable under the impugned judgment and order dated 11-4-97. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 11-4-97 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1 (T) 96, the petitioner filed this Revision petition. 3. Mr. B. P. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended, that the appeal is maintainable under Rule 24 of the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950, as the case having risen out of the autonomous area of Meghalaya falling within the Sixth Schedule area inasmuch as, the appellate Court namely, Addl. Deputy Commissioner which is also a Court functioning under the provisions of such Rule and Order and, apart from it, the cases of such areas shall necessarily be governed by the special Acts and Rules framed for the administration of justice within these areas and, likewise, the Court of Asstt. to Deputy Commissioner is also a Court having power to deal with the matters arising out of and from within the territorial jurisdiction under the provisions and Rules framed for administration of justice in the autonomous areas. 4. According to Mr. B. P. Dutta, the learned District Judge/Addl. Deputy Commissioner had miserably failed to take into consideration about the factum of the period taken for supply of copy of certified copy which is 238 days as the application for certified copy of the order of 27-6-95 passed by the learned Trial Court was filed on 28-6-95 and the copy was ready on 20-2-96 and the same was delivered 26-2-96 to the applicant/petitioner and the appeal was filed on 18-3-96 and, as such, the appeal was filed within time. But, the learned District Judge/Addl. Deputy Commissioner had completely lost these important existing facts and materials on record while passing the impugned judgment and order of 11-3-97. Mr. B. P. Dutta also argued, that unless the jurisdiction of the Asstt. But, the learned District Judge/Addl. Deputy Commissioner had completely lost these important existing facts and materials on record while passing the impugned judgment and order of 11-3-97. Mr. B. P. Dutta also argued, that unless the jurisdiction of the Asstt. to the Deputy Commissioner is accepted under the related local Acts and Rules, the Asstt. to Deputy Commissioner could not have exercised its jurisdiction in the present matter/instant case where the award money of Rs. 1,55,132.25 p. is involved and, as such, the related Local Acts and Rules shall be operative and applicable in the instant case. 5. It is also contended by Mr. B. P. Dutta that, the impugned orders of both the courts below are both bad in law and facts and equity. 6. At the hearing, Mr. S. R. Sen learned counsel appearing for the respondent argued, that the Meghalaya Arbitration (Extension and Amendment) Act, 1990, has been enacted and it was published in the gazette of Meghalaya extraordinary on April 26, 1990, and that, the said Act extends to the whole of the State of Meghalaya and it shall be deemed to have come into force w.e.f. the 14th day of March, 1990, thus extending the Arbitration Act, 1940 to the tribal areas of Meghalaya and having its force with immediate effect i.e. on and from 14th day of March, 1990. 7. According to Mr. S. R. Sen, the appeal of the present appellant under Rule 24 of the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950, before the first appellate court is not maintainable at all in view of the fact that there is specific provisions for appeal as laid down under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of 11-4-97, Mr. Sen contended. 8. On the other hand, while arguing and supporting the case of the petitioner, Mr. B. P. Dutta submitted that the learned first appellate court ought to have decided the case on its own merit and set aside the order of the learned trial Court namely, the Asstt. to Deputy Commissioner as the Arbitrator, while deciding the dispute acted beyond the terms of contract which is a misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator. Supporting this submission, Mr. Dutta made reliance on certain decisions of the Apex Court rendered in Associated Engineering Co. v. Govt. to Deputy Commissioner as the Arbitrator, while deciding the dispute acted beyond the terms of contract which is a misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator. Supporting this submission, Mr. Dutta made reliance on certain decisions of the Apex Court rendered in Associated Engineering Co. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1992 SC 232 and also a decision rendered in M/s. Prabartak Commercial Corporation Ltd. v. Chief Administrator Dandakaranya Project reported in AIR 1991 SC 957 and submitted, that the Arbitrator granting claims not covered by the agreement by not interpreting the contract but merely looking at it, amounts to misconduct and the dispute regarding rates which does not fall within arbitration clause, a reference of it as well as the reward is without jurisdiction. 9. Supporting the case of the respondent, Mr. S. R. Sen the learned counsel, had relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court rendered in B. V. Radhakrishna v. Sponge Iron India Ltd. reported in AIR 1997 SC 1324 and another decision rendered in Sudarshan Trading Co. v. Govt. of Kerala reported in AIR 1989 SC 890 and argued, that the High Court cannot substitute its own view in place of Arbitrators view and the High Court cannot examine the matter as a regular Appellate Court and the amounts awarded by Arbitrator by taking particular view of the contract, the Court cannot substitute its own decision. I hereby agree with all these submissions advanced by the learned counsel on both sides with regard to the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the above cited cases. 10. Before going into the merits of the case further more, this Court require to examine as to whether the appeal preferred by the present petitioner before the learned District Judge/Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, from the impugned order dated 27-6-95 passed by the Asstt. to the Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in (ARB) Misc. Case No. 74 (T) 92 shall be maintainable or not and whether the first Appellate Court require to dispose of the said appeal being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1 (T) 96 on its own merit according to law, if the said appeal is maintainable. 11. On bare perusal of the certified copy of the impugned order of 27-6-95 passed by the Asstt. to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, in (ARB) Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1 (T) 96 on its own merit according to law, if the said appeal is maintainable. 11. On bare perusal of the certified copy of the impugned order of 27-6-95 passed by the Asstt. to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, in (ARB) Misc. Case No. 74 (T) 92 it has been revealed that the application for the certified copy of the said order was submitted on 28-6-95 and, that the same was ready for delivery on 20-2-96 and the certified copy of the order was delivered on 26-2-96 and, as such, the period taken for supply of copy was 238 days. In my considered view, the appeal was preferred by the present petitioner (appellant) before the first appellate court from the impugned order of 27-6-95 within a period of 30 days and the appeal was within time. It is true, that by virtue of the provisions of law laid down under Meghalaya Arbitration (Extension and Amendment) Act, 1990, the extension of Central Act namely, the Arbitration Act, 1940, has been made and that the same came into force w.e.f. the 14th day of March, 1990 in the tribal areas of Meghalaya as per Section 2 of the Act of 1990 and, as such, all the provisions of law laid down under the Arbitration Act, 1940, shall be applicable in the State of Meghalaya with certain explanation which is termed as hereunder :- ""tribal areas" are the areas specified in Part II of the Table appended to paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution. 12. It is also an established principle of law that, no Second Appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under Section 39, but, nothing in this Section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court, (See Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940). A moot question had come up before a Division Bench of this Court when a related matter was referred by a learned single Judge to a larger Bench with regard to the maintainability of a Revision petition from an appellate judgment passed in the appeal as contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and, as laid down under the Rules for Administration of Justice in Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 and the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950. The Division Bench of this Court, by its judgment dated 8-10-91 passed in Civil Revision No. 5 (SH) 90 and Civil Revision No. 74 (SH) 89 held, that against the appellate order passed in appeal, as contemplated under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, a Revision Petition in the High Court is competent and, both in the Rules for Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 framed under Section 6 of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, and the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950 framed under the provisions of Extra Provisional Act, 1947, there is express provision conferring revisional jurisdiction to the High Court against any appellate order passed by the Court of Deputy Commissioner or the Court of Addl. Deputy Commissioner, thus the aforementioned two Civil Revision Nos. 5 (SH) 90 and Civil Revision 74 (SH) 89 are competent. While deciding the issue, the Division Bench of this Court also observed, that under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, it has been laid down that subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the provision of CPC applies to all proceedings of the Court in all appeals under the Act and there is no express bar to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC by the High Court. In the above two Civil Revisions cases, the Division Bench of this Court read the provisions of Sections 39 and 41 of the Arbitration Act read with the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in Khasi and Jaintia Hills, 1937 and the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950, while determining the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against any appellate order passed by the Court of Deputy Commissioner or the Court of Addl. Deputy Commissioner. 13. While rendering the impugned judgment and order by the learned District Judge/Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, the following observations and findings have been made :- "Assuming that the instant appeal is entertainable under Rule 24 of the said rules and orders, yet the same appears to have been preferred beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the said rules. While the impugned order is dated 26-7-95, the appeal was preferred only on 18-3-96. While the impugned order is dated 26-7-95, the appeal was preferred only on 18-3-96. Rule 24 of the said rules and orders speaks - Appellate Court - An appeal shall lie to the Deputy Commissioner or the Additional Deputy Commissioner from the decision of the Asstt. to the Deputy Commissioner and the Syiems Court within 30 days and 60 days respectively of the date of the decision exclusively of the time needed for obtaining a copy of the order appealed against. The instant appeal assuming that it is entertainable under Rule 24 of the said rules and orders is also found to be beyond the period of limitation of 30 days as prescribed therein and on this ground also the appeal is not sustainable." 14. From the above discussion and on the basis of the available materials on record. I am of the view that the said appeal under Rule 24 of the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950, was presented/filed within the period of 30 days and, as such, the finding of the learned District Judge/Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, to the effect that the appeal was found to be beyond the period of limitation, is erroneous and it is a finding on no basis. In my considered view, the learned District Judge/Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, ought to have converted the said appeal under Rule 24 of the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950 to an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, as this order is necessary for the ends of justice by invoking the provisions of law laid down under Section 151, C.P.C. or by reading Rule 24 of the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950 read with Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and decide the matter on its own merit. Universally accepted maxim, rather, principle of law is that, "justice must not only be done but must also appear to have been done." This Rule has received wide recognition in several decisions of the Apex Court. One of the decisions of the Apex Court finds its place in paragraph 16 of the judgment relating to a case between Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1987 SC 454 : 1986 Lab IC 1417. One of the decisions of the Apex Court finds its place in paragraph 16 of the judgment relating to a case between Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1987 SC 454 : 1986 Lab IC 1417. In my opinion, the learned first appellate Court ought to have borne the above maxim in his judicial mind while deciding the question of maintainability of the related appeal, but, it was not done so. 15. Applying all these established principles of law and also, considering the existing facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal preferred by the present petitioner namely, Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1 (T) 96, is hereby treated as an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Rule 24 of the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950, and, accordingly, I direct the learned District Judge/Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, to hear the said appeal afresh and to dispose of the same on its own merit, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. It is made clear, that the parties are at liberty to raise the above cited decisions of the apex Court before the learned District Judge/Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, at the time of hearing of the related appeal and, it is further made clear, that if there is any deficit Court fee, the petitioner is required to pay the necessary Court fees for the said appeal. The parties are further directed to appear before the learned District Judge/Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, on 26-8-98 at 10:30 AM. For the reasons, observations and directions made above, this petition is allowed, thus, setting aside the judgment and order dated 11-4-97 passed by the learned District Judge/Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1(T) of 1996, but, no costs. Petition allowed.