S.RAJENDRA BABU, J. (1) THIS appeal by special leave arises out of arbitration proceedings. It is rather unfortunate that the arbitration proceedings which commenced on 14th January, 1980 by the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute which had arisen between the parties, arising out of a contract entered into between 1973 and 1975, have remained unresolved till date. (2) CERTAIN disputes having arisen between the contractor on the one hand and the C.Public Witness D. (appellant herein) on the other, the contractor sought reference of the disputes to an Arbitrator in terms of Clause 25 of the Agreement. On 14th January, 1980, an Arbitrator was appointed to resolve the disputes between the parties, who entered upon the Reference on 15th February, 1980. The learned Arbitrator made his Award on 30th January, 1981. (3) THE appellant filed objections under Section 30/33 of the Arbitration Act, after the Award was filed in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Allahabad. The respondent resisted the objections but also pleaded that the Award had not been filed by a proper person and the same was beyond time. The learned Additional Civil Judge, Allahabad vide judgment dated 21st February, 1984 found that the Award had been filed in time and also by a proper person. The objection raised by the appellant to the effect that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself was rejected. The Award was consequently made a Rule of the Court. A decree in terms of the Award followed. The appellants first appeal against the Award failed in the High Court. Its appeal was dismissed on 20th May, 1988. Hence, this appeal by Special Leave. (4) MS.INDRA Sawhney, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that under the terms of the Agreement, the determination by the Superintending Engineer with regard to the negligence of the contractor to complete the work within the stipulated period and to levy penalty equal to one per cent or such smaller amount as he may determine for his failure was to be treated as final between the parties and the same could not be the subject-matter of arbitration proceedings and since the arbitrator had not taken note of this aspect, the award was vitiated. We cannot agree. (5) THERE has been no determination of the negligence to complete the work insofar as the respondent is concerned by the Superintending Engineer. We cannot agree. (5) THERE has been no determination of the negligence to complete the work insofar as the respondent is concerned by the Superintending Engineer. No material, whatsoever, was produced before the learned trial Court to show that any final determination had been made by the Superintending Engineer and that a certificate of that determination had been issued to the respondent, who despite the issuance of such a certificate, had proceeded with the Arbitration. No evidence in this behalf was led by the appellant either before the Arbitrator or in the Civil Court. In the absence of any such material, the trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the objections and making the Award a Rule of the Court and it is not open to the appellant to challenge the validity of the Award on that count at this belated stage. (6) WE do not find any cause to interfere with the order of the High Court which has upheld the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge making the Award a Rule of the Court. (7) THIS appeal has no merits. It fails and is, hereby, dismissed but with no order as to costs.