Per Dr. B.P. Saraf, Chief Justice (Oral) 1. This is an appeal under Section 39 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act, 2002 (1945 A.D.) against the order of the learned Sin­gle Judge by which the learned Single Judge rejected the objection of the appellant ("con­tractor") to the award dated 13th April, 1991 being made rule of Court. 2. The material facts of the case are as fol­lows. The appellant is a contractor, he entered into a contract agreement with the Garrison Engineer, 873-Engineers Works for the con­struction of ME.S.Key Personnel Quarters at Akhnoor and commenced work pursuant thereto. As the appellants failed to complete the work within stipulated time, the respond­ents terminated the contract and in terms of the contract got the balance works executed by some other contractor at the risk and cost of the appellant. The respondents also took charge of the material of the appellant lying at the work-site. The appellant filed an application under Section 20 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act in this Court for a direction to the respondents to file the arbitration agreement in the court and for reference of the dispute be­tween them to arbitration. Along with the said application, a petition was also filed for appoint­ment of a Commissioner to make an inventory of the materials belonging to the appellant lying at the work-site. This court after hearing both the parties, by order dated, 21st Septem­ber, 1989, referred the dispute between the parties arising out of the contract to a sole arbi­trator in terms of the arbitration clause in the contract agreement. One Col. Shri J.Natrajan was appointed the sole arbitrator. The appellant and the respondents filed their respec­tive statement of claim before the arbitrator. The arbitrator gave his award on 13th April, 1991. By the said award the arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 18,500/- in favour of the appellant-con­tractor and a sum of Rs.2,10,691.42 in favour of the respondents. The award was filed in the court for being made rule of court. The appel­lant filed his objections to the award being made rule of court and prayed that the award should be set aside on the ground of misconduct. 18,500/- in favour of the appellant-con­tractor and a sum of Rs.2,10,691.42 in favour of the respondents. The award was filed in the court for being made rule of court. The appel­lant filed his objections to the award being made rule of court and prayed that the award should be set aside on the ground of misconduct. The learned Single Judge, who heard the matter, observed that the dispute sought to be raised by the appellant was a purely factual dispute which could not be examined by the court under Sec­tion 30 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act because it was not open to the court to re-examine and re-appreciate the evidence consid­ered by the arbitrator. The learned Single Judge rejected the objections of the appellant and made the award rule of court. The appellant seeks to challenge the above order of the learned Single Judge in this appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, who submits that the learned Single Judge committed a manifest error of law in not setting aside that award on the ground of misconduct. According to him, the report of the Commissioner appointed by this court during the pendency of the arbitration application under Section 20 of the Act was binding on the arbitrator and he should have determined the compensation payable to the contractor on the basis of the said report. He submits that the determination of the compensation by the arbitrator hi the present case is arbitrary and the award is liable to be set-aside also on that count. 4. We have carefully considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the ap­pellant, we are, however, not impressed by the same. The award in the instant case is a non-speaking award. The appellant seeks to challenge the determination of the amount of compensation by the arbitrator under different heads which, in our opinion, is not permissible. The arbitrator is a Judge by the choice of the parties. The award of the arbitrator is a decision of the domestic tribunal chosen by the parties. Law .is firmly established that where the matters in difference are referred to an ar­bitrator, he is constituted the sole and final judge of all questions, both of law and of fact. The arbitrator is a Judge by the choice of the parties. The award of the arbitrator is a decision of the domestic tribunal chosen by the parties. Law .is firmly established that where the matters in difference are referred to an ar­bitrator, he is constituted the sole and final judge of all questions, both of law and of fact. The decision of the arbitrator is binding on the par­ties if it is reached fairly after giving adequate opportunity to the parties to place their griev­ances in the manner provided by the arbitra­tion agreement. The civil courts are entrusted with the power to facilitate arbitration and effectuate the awards. They cannot exercise the appellate powers over the decisions of the ar­bitrators. The award of an arbitrator can be challenged only on the grounds set out in the Arbitration Act. In the Arbitration Act, the legislature has linked the scope and ambit of challenge to an award. By and large, the courts have also dis-favoured interference with arbi­tration award on account of error of law and fact on the score of mis-appreciation and mis-reading of the materials on record and have shown definite inclination to preserve the award as far as possible. It is now well-settled that the award of an arbitrator cannot be set aside by the court merely because by a process of inference and arguments it may be demonstrated that the arbitrator has committed some mis­take in arriving at his conclusion on the merits of the disputes referred to it for adjudication. The award can, however, be challenged on the ground of error of law on the face of the award, if in the award itself or in any document incor­porated in it, there is some illegal proposition which is the basis of the award. 5. The above legal position has been aptly summed up by-the Supreme Court in Alien Berry & Co.(P) Ltd. V. Union of India AIR 1971 SC 696 in the following words: "Even when an arbitrator commits a mis­take either in law or in fact in determining the matter referred to him but such mistake does not appear on the face of the award or in a document appended to or incorporated in it so as to form part of it, the award will neither be remitted nor set aside notwithstanding the mistake." 6. It is only when an erroneous proposi­tion of law is stated in the award and it is the basis of the award that the award can be set aside or remitted on the ground of error of law appar­ent on the face of the record. But in no case the court can set-aside the award on the ground of mistake of fact committed by the arbitrator. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of Rajastan vs. puri Construction Co. Ltd. (1994) 6 SCC 485, in its anxiety to render justice to the party to arbitration,, the court should not re-ap­praise the evidence intrinsically with a close scrutiny for finding out that the conclusion drawn from some facts by the arbitrator is, ac­cording to the understanding of the court, erro­neous. Such exercise of power, which can be exercised by the appellate court with powers to reverse the finding of fact, is alien to the scope and ambit of challenge to an award under the Arbitration Act. 7. The jurisdiction of the court is more re­stricted in case of a non-speaking award. It is only in a speaking award that the court can ex­amine an error of law on the face of these record and look into the reasoning of the award which is not possible in case of a non-speaking award. It is not open to the court to probe the mental process of the arbitrator and speculate, where no reasons are given by the arbitrator, as to what impelled the arbitrator to arrive at his conclu­sion. A non-speaking award can be set aside only if the arbitrator acts beyond his jurisdiction. 8. The grievance of the appellant in the present case appears to be that the learned Sin­gle Judge failed to re-appraise the evidence with a view to finding out whether the arbitrator had arrived at the amount of compensation cor­rectly. According, to the learned counsel for the appellant, ff the Single Judge would have scruitnised the facts of the case closely, he would have found that the finding of the arbi­trator in regard to the quantum of compensa­tion was erroneous. According, to the learned counsel for the appellant, ff the Single Judge would have scruitnised the facts of the case closely, he would have found that the finding of the arbi­trator in regard to the quantum of compensa­tion was erroneous. As stated by us earlier, such reappraisal of evidence or close scrutiny of evi­dence for finding out whether the findings of fact arrived at by the arbitrator are correct or erroneous is not permissible, it is well settled by now that an error of law or fact committed by an arbitrator by itself would not constitute misconduct to justify interference with the award. The award in the instant case is a non-speaking award. The arbitrator has not spoken his mind indicating whey he has awarded a particular amount under particular head or why he has disallowed the claim under a particular head. In such a case, it is not open to the court to probe into the mental process of the arbitra­tor and speculate as to what impelled him to arrive at his conclusion. The learned Single Judge rightly refused do so. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge. This appeal, in our opinion, is wholly devoid of any merit and hence dismissed. The CMP and caveat are also disposed of.