Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. 2. Challenge in the present revision is to the order dated 11.6.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat and the order dated 25.5.2000, vide which the first appellate court affirmed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 3. The only ground of challenge in the present revision is that the learned arbitrator could not have awarded the interest pendente lite and pre-reference interest and in any case at the rate of 18% per annum. This question was squarely dealt with by the learned trial court and the same was rejected, while relying upon the judgments of Honble Apex Court in the cases of State of Orissa v. B.N. Aggarwaila, 1997 L.J.R. 374 and M/s Steeman Ltd. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., 1997(1) L.J.R. 600. Relevant part of the order reads as under:- "The case law titled M/s Steeman Ltd. v. The State of Himachal Pradesh & ors (supra) referred to the ld. counsel for plaintiff/applicant is fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this case law, the Honble Supreme Court has held that the court can interfere with the Award of the Arbitrator only with in ambit of Section 30 of the Act. The Honble Supreme Court has further held that Award of interest is not governed by Section 30 of the Act." In view of the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, an objector has no right to challenge the award on the ground that the Arbitrator has awarded the interest illegally and wrongly because the objection in respect of the interest does not come under the ambit of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. In another case law titled State of Orissa v. B.N. Agarwalla (supra) is also fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. In this case law, Honble Supreme Court has held that Arbitrator has discretion to award the interest to pre-reference period in matter in which the case of action accrued after the operation of Interest Act, 1978. "The Honble Supreme Court has further held that arbitrator has discretion to award the interest pendente lite with further interest." No other law contrary to the law referred above has been cited by the 1d. counsel for objector. "The Honble Supreme Court has further held that arbitrator has discretion to award the interest pendente lite with further interest." No other law contrary to the law referred above has been cited by the 1d. counsel for objector. No other ground has been raised by the objector. Under these circumstances, I am of the confirmed view that there is no illegality in the award dated 13.10.1997 and there is no scope to interfere into the award. Under these circumstances, the objection filed by the defendant/objector are hereby dismissed and the award is entitled to be made the rule of the court." 4. This view in law was affirmed by the learned first appellate court. I too see no reason/to differ with the concurrent view recorded by the learned courts below. 5. Learned counsel for the State has not been able to point out any law or judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, where a view different than the one in the case of B.N. Aggarwalla and M/s Steeman Ltd. (supra) has been taken. No merit. Dismissed.