( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 22. 4. 98 in Suit No/49/1996 whereby the Additional District Judge has set aside the award dated 4. 1. 94 passed by the arbitrator and remitted back the entire matter to the arbitrator with direction to him to consider the claim of the DDA and the counter claim of appellant hereinafter notice to the parties. ( 2 ) PURSUANT to a contract entered into between the parties, disputes arose between the parties and the said disputes were referred to the sole arbitration of Sh. S. C Kaushal in terms of clause 25 of the agreement. Pursuant to the aforesaid reference the arbitrator entered into the reference and considered the claims and counterclaims of the parties and made his award on 4. 1. 94. By the aforesaid award the arbitrator held that all the three claims of DDA were not justified and accordingly rejected the said claims, ln respect of the counter-claims of the appellant he held that no counter-claim came up duly referred by the Chief Engineer and with the said observations he disposed of the counter-claims accordingly. As against the aforesaid award passed by the arbitrator the appellant herein filed objection before the Additional District Judge praying for remitting back the counter-claim to arbitrator for deciding the said counter-claims of the appellant. Objections were also filed by the respondent for setting aside the award given in respect of claims of the DDA. The Additional District Judge took up the aforesaid objections for consideration and disposed of the same by setting aside the entire award and remitted back the same to the arbitrator to consider the claim and counter-claims of the parties after notice to them. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the counsel for the appellant, the Additional District Judge was not justified in holding that the claims and counter claims of the parties were inseparable in nature, for according to him claims made by the DDA and counter-claims of the appellant herein are independent claims having no bearing and relevance with each other. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the counsel for the appellant, the Additional District Judge was not justified in holding that the claims and counter claims of the parties were inseparable in nature, for according to him claims made by the DDA and counter-claims of the appellant herein are independent claims having no bearing and relevance with each other. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the respondent, however, submits that no appeal has been preferred by the respondent herein taking in to consideration the fact that entire award was set aside by the trial court although the objection filed by respondent was required to be disposed of by the Additional District Judge by allowing the same. ( 5 ) I have considered the rival submissions of the counsel for the appellant as also the counsel for the respondent. The claims of the respondent, which were referred for arbitration were three-fold in nature. The first claim of Rs. 84,671. 00 was on account of rescission of contract, whereas the second claim was for an amount of Rs. 25,000. 00 towards cost of the proceedings and the third claim was for payment of interest. The aforesaid three claims were referred to the arbitrator for his decision by a specific order of the court. It also transpires from the records that by an order dated 15. 7. 93, the appellant herein was allowed to raise counterclaims before the arbitrator also. Pursuant thereto certain counter-claims were raised before the arbitrator, namely, Counter-Claim No. 1 which was on account of actual work done at site. Counter- Claim No. 2 which was a claim on account of loss of labour. Counter-Claim No. 3 was in respect of cost of construction of store and other accommodation at the site. Claim No. 4 was on account of loss of material. Claim No. 5 was towards interest and Claim No. 9 was for payment of cost ot arbitration proceedings. The Additional District Judge by setting aside the award remitted back to the arbitrator the entire award with directions to him to consider the claim of the DDA as also the counter-claims of the appellant here in. ( 6 ) I have gone through the findings recorded by the arbitrator in respect of Claim No. l which was a claim for payment of Rs. 84,671. 00 on account of rescission of the contract. ( 6 ) I have gone through the findings recorded by the arbitrator in respect of Claim No. l which was a claim for payment of Rs. 84,671. 00 on account of rescission of the contract. The said claim was bifurcated in to three claims, namely, for Rs. 34,200. 00 towards payment of cement plus cartage and refilling of foundation trenches, for Rs. 36,008. 00 towards cost of work to be done at the risk and cost of respondent and for Rs. 9. 063. 00 on account of forfeiture of security deposit. The arbitration recorded that the DDA failed to supply the details of architectural and structural drawings and, therefore, in absence of the same the appellant could not do any work and that the said claims by the DDA were not justified. When reference is made to Claim No. 1 of the appellant, it is apparent that the said claim is based on some work allegedly executed by the appellant at site. According to the aforesaid claim the appellant had collected labour at the site and started work of digging. It also appears that there is a counter claim which is Claim No. 3 wherein the appellant has sought for payment towards construction of store and other accommodation at the site for putting cement and labour at site. The aforesaid claims in my considered opinion are connected with the claim of the DDA for payment of an amount of Rs. 34,200. 00 which is a claim for cost of cement plus cartage and refiling of foundation trenches. So far as claims for Rs. 36,008. 00 for cost of work to be done at the risk and cost of respondent and for Rs. 9,063. 00 on account of forfeiture security deposit are concerned, the arbitration in his decision has not given any reasons as to why the said claims were not justified. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I find that the order of the Additional District Judge in setting aside the entire award is justified and he has rightly remitted back the matter to the arbitrator to consider the claim of the DDA and counter-claim of the respondent. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal stands dismissed but without any costs.