Manmohan Sarin,j. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act seeking extension of time for making and publishing the award by the Arbitrator. ( 2 ) THE respondent had filed a petition under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 bearing Suit No. 3045-A/1992 for reference of the disputes in respect of the construction of flats for the petitioner society. The Court had appointed Justice Santosh Duggal, a retired Judge of this Court as Arbitrator vide order dated 6. 5. 1993. The Arbitrator had entered upon reference on 10. 7. 1993. Thereafter time for making and publishing the award was extended upto 10. 3. 1994,10. 7. 1994 and finally till the 9th of November, 1994. On 7. 1. 1995, the respondent declined to extend further time for making and publishing the award. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the parties have taken me through the record of the arbitral proceedings. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the respondent himself has been responsible for the initial delay in completion of the pleadings as well as in not attending the proceedings on a number of dates. Besides, the submission of the petitioner is that having regard to the nature of the controversy involved, the Arbitrator had been acting with reasonable despatch. Delay was occasioned on account of either adjourn- ments being sought by the respondent or due to objections being raised by the respondent. Learned Counsel for the respondent refutes these allegations and submits that it was the respondent who had sought reference of disputes to the Arbitrator and the respondent was anxious to have his own claims adjudicated expeditiously. He contends that huge amounts were due to the respondent, which has been wrongly withheld. ( 4 ) I need not be drawn into the controversy which hinges on the merits of the disputes which is squarely falls within the domain of the Arbitrator. Learned Counsel for the respondent also sought to lay emphasis that on a simple question of the appointment of a Local Commissioner for taking the measurement of the work done the proceedings went on for a number of dates. These, according to the Counsel, would indicate that the Arbitrator was not acting with reasonable despatch. Learned Counsel for the respondent sought to urge that the enquiry of the Local Commissioner should have been confined to the period after 13. 2. These, according to the Counsel, would indicate that the Arbitrator was not acting with reasonable despatch. Learned Counsel for the respondent sought to urge that the enquiry of the Local Commissioner should have been confined to the period after 13. 2. 1990 as there was no dispute with regard to the measurements before that date. However, this submission does not advance the respondent s case. Arbitral proceedings of 2. 10. 1994, indicate that agreement was reached between the parties that the Local Commissioner would take all measurements of work executed at site. Learned Counsel next contended that even though the Arbitrator had initially communicated that Mr. M. L. Aggarwal had declined to accept the appointment as Local Commissioner but for reasons unknown, he seems to have been persuaded subsequently to accept the appointment. This as per the respondent, raises a suspicion in his mind: I am afraid that such suspicion without more cannot be made the basis for declining extension. ( 5 ) CONSIDERING inc matter in its entirety, I am of the view that it cannot be said that the Arbitrator had not been acting with reasonable despatch granted the circumstances of the case as well as the fact that many adjournments had ensued on the request of the respondent himself. Accordingly, I allow the petition and grant extension of time to the Arbitrator and for making and publishing the award by four months from the date the Arbitrator resumes the reference.