JUDGMENT O. P. SHARMA, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 1-2-1999 making the award rule of the Court. The judgment has been challenged on the following grounds : (i) That the Court has ignored the fact that Arbitrator had on his own resigned with effect from 1st of January, 1991 and thereafter a new Arbitrator was appointed by the competent authority. This fact having not been denied the award was liable to be set aside on this ground alone; and (ii) That the appellants were not provided reasonable opportunity to produce evidence to prove misconduct; (iii) That the learned Single Judge has made the award rule of the Court without examining the contents of the award which remained in the scaled cover filed by the Arbitrator. 2. The contention of Mr. Bhat, Sr. C.G.S.C. appearing for the appellant is that Sh. M. M. S. Parihar the sole Arbitrator had resigned vide his letter dated 15-12-1990 with effect from 1st January, 1991 on the ground that he was to superannuate on 31-10-1991. His resignation was accepted by the Engineer-in-Chief who appointed Brig. Y. W. Joshi as the sole Arbitrator vide letter dated 10-1-1991. Brigadier Parihar, therefore, according to the learned counsel had ceased to be the Arbitrator and had no authority to continue the arbitration proceedings. He also argued that reasonable opportunity to produce evidence was denied while rejecting the request. His further argument is that the award was made rule of the Court without examining its contents which was necessary to consider its legality or otherwise. These contentions have been repelled by Mr. P. C. Markanda appearing for the respondents that the Arbitrator had continued the proceedings in deference to this Court order dated 20-12-1990 passed in C.M.P. No. 125/1990 seeking his removal. Besides, the parties had also agreed to his continuation and even filed a joint application asking him to make the award by 30-7-1991. Regarding the opportunity to produce evidence his submission is that four years was a fairly long time to produce evidence. The argument that award was not considered by the learned Single Judge according to Mr. Markanda is not substantiated by the facts. 3. We may now consider the rival contention with reference to the record of the proceedings before the Arbitrator and the Court. The argument that award was not considered by the learned Single Judge according to Mr. Markanda is not substantiated by the facts. 3. We may now consider the rival contention with reference to the record of the proceedings before the Arbitrator and the Court. It is an question of fact that the Arbitrator Sh. Parihar had tendered his resignation vide letter dated 15-12-1990 and desired to be relieved because he was to superannuate on 31-1-1991. It is also a fact that Engineer-in-Chief vide his letter dated 16-1-1991 accepted his resignation and appointed one Brigadier Y. W. Joshi as the sole Arbitrator. However, these facts could be establish by leading evidence which the appellant failed to produce. But assuming that these having not been disputed, the question is whether the award is invalid on this ground. The award is not invalid because-before the Arbitrator had tendered his resignation, the respondents had filed Arbitration Application No. 125 of 1990 for his removal. This application it appears was resisted by the appellant. This application was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 20-12-1990 with the following direction : "Accordingly this petition is dismissed with a direction to respondent No. 6 to dispose of the arbitration proceedings and file the award positively before 31st of March, 1991. Intervening delay shall stand condoned." It is clear that the counsel appearing for Union of India instead of informing the Court about the resignation of the Arbitrator submitted by the Arbitrator, resisted his removal. So Brigadier Parihar had no option but to comply the Court order dated 20-12-1990 and ignore the order dated 16-1-1990 as he could not affect to violate Court direction. 4. Subsequently the Arbitrator sought extension of time. A learned Single Judge of this Court on 26-3-1991 extended the time by four months while disposing of C.M.P. No. 139/1991. Further it is also a matter of record that a joint request was made by the appellant as well as the contractor for extension of time vide letter dated 19-3-1991 signed by Lt. Col. G. S. Dhillon on behalf of Union of India and the contractor. It was on this basis that the time was extended by order dated 26-3-1991. Even if there was no order of the Court extending the time, this joint request would extend the time in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Arbitration Act. Col. G. S. Dhillon on behalf of Union of India and the contractor. It was on this basis that the time was extended by order dated 26-3-1991. Even if there was no order of the Court extending the time, this joint request would extend the time in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 26 of the Arbitration Act. In view of the above the Arbitrator was perfectly justified in continuing the arbitration proceedings and the award cannot be questioned on this ground. 5. This brings us to the second challenge to the judgment that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the appellant for producing evidence. The learned Single Judge has reproduced the order dated 25-11-1998. At the cost of repetition we reproduce the same as under : "A perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that two months time was allowed to the objector-respondent to adduce evidence in the shape of affidavits. Record of the case further shows that matter remained pending for one reason or the other, however, fact remains that affidavits were not filed. Again matter appeared before the Court on 25-11-1998. Order passed on that date is to the following effect : "This case has been taken up on a mention in the files on behalf of the petitioner today. Record of the file shows that issues were framed as far back as on 27th April, 1994. It is going to be more than 4 1/2 years yet affidavits have not been filed by way of evidence in terms of the orders of Court. As the request of Shri Slathia another opportunity is allowed to objector-respondents to now file affidavit(s) on or before 29th December, 1998. This case will be listed before the Court on 30th December, 1998, for further orders. C.M.P. stands disposed of." When case was listed on 30-11-1998 position remained the same, still another opportunity was granted to the objector-respondent for doing the needful." 6. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that grant of any further adjournment for producing affidavit would result in failure of justice. In the circumstances even this ground is not tenable. Coming to the question whether learned Single Judge had perused the award or not. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that grant of any further adjournment for producing affidavit would result in failure of justice. In the circumstances even this ground is not tenable. Coming to the question whether learned Single Judge had perused the award or not. We think that it is a question of fact and unless the appellant was able to show any infirmity in the award which remained unnoticed by the Court, this argument would not be of any help to set aside the judgment. We are, thus, of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. However, in view of the concession made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent we modify the judgment to the extent that interest at the rate of 12% would be payable only if the award/decree is not satisfied within six months from today. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.