Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Sub Judge, I, Bettiah {West Champaran), in Miscellaneous case no. 36 of 1993. The defendants of that case are the appellants here (including the State of Bihar). 2. The facts relevant for this appeal are that respondent Dulal Poddar had admittedly taken certain contracts from the employees of the State of Bihar to execute certain schemes in the Don Canal Division as also in the Triveni Canal Division. The contractor-respondent entered into an agreement and he completed his work by the due time. But he was not paid his dues inspite of completion of his work and inspite of submission of bills in this connection by him. So, the Superintending Engineer of the concerned department was appointed as Arbitrator, but this Superintending Engineer inspite of several requests by the respondent as also inspite of direction by the Chief Engineer failed finally to decide the claims of respondent and to give a final award, although he had given an interim award. Then having failed to seek redressal of his grievances from the department concerned the respondent filed the aforementioned miscellaneous case before the Sub Judge, He prayed for appointment of an Arbitrator. Then Sri P.C.N. Shahi, retired tngineer, was appointed as Arbitrator by the court, who submitted his award dated 15.5.94. The appellants failed to appear before the Artibrator inspite of several notices and, so, the award handed down the Arbitrator was, of course, ex parte. 3. In this appeal both sides were heard and it was submitted by the appellants lawyer that the claim of the respondent was time-barred in the first place, and the judgment passed by the learned Sub-Judge was bad because it was passed on some concessions by the Government Pleader conducting the appellants case in the lower court. Moreover, the Arbitrator appointed by the court was also appointed without notice to the appellants. The respondents lawyer replied that the award given by the Arbitrator was perfectly justified because the appellants before this Court failed to appear before him inspite of several notices in this connection. The amount of award cannot be challenged in the civil court unless the Arbitrator gives his reasons for basing his award. The respondents lawyer replied that the award given by the Arbitrator was perfectly justified because the appellants before this Court failed to appear before him inspite of several notices in this connection. The amount of award cannot be challenged in the civil court unless the Arbitrator gives his reasons for basing his award. Moreover, the respondent-applicant had doubted the integrity of the Arbitrator appointed by the appellants and as there was inordinate delay by the named Arbitrator, the respondent had no alternative but to rush to the court for seeking his relief. In the case of misconduct by the named Arbitrator also, the aggrieved party was entitled to seek relief from the civil court. The appointment of the Arbitrator by the court was challenged in a revision before this High Court and since stay was not granted by the High Court it was to be presumed that revision had no merit and that the order of the lower court appointing the Arbitrate remained unchallenged and final Moreover, the objection to the awar rendered by the Arbitrator was filed after 30 days of its filing in court. So, also objection was not sustainable. 4. On the above major grounds of defence taken by the respondent before this Court, the impugned judgment of the learned Sub Judge had been sought to be justified. 5. However, certain order sheets of the lower court in the concerned miscellaneous case are relevant to decide whether the court exercised its jurisdiction as enjoined by law. I find that miscellaneous case no. 36/93 was filed on 18.f2.93. Then it was registered and it was adjourned to 20.12.93. On 20.12.93 the applicant (respondent here) was directed to remove certain defects in his application. Next date was 23.12.93. On 23.12.93 the alleged defects were removed. On this very date under the heading "later on" an order was passed appointing Sri P.C.N. Shahi, retired Chief Engineer, as the Arbitrator of the case and then notices were ordered to be issued to the opposite parties (appellants here). The ordersheet dated 25.3.94/30.3.94 shows that the Arbitrator had written a letter to the court for issuance of notices to the opposite parties and the Arbitrator had also prayed for extension of time for submission of the award. The ordersheet dated 25.3.94/30.3.94 shows that the Arbitrator had written a letter to the court for issuance of notices to the opposite parties and the Arbitrator had also prayed for extension of time for submission of the award. This ordersheet shows that already a letter appointing Sri P.C.N. Shahi as Arbitrator was sent to him and he was directed to submit his award within four months. But up till now neither notice was sent to the opposite parties (appellants) nor they had appeared. The ordersheet dated 2.5.94 shows that the Executive Engineer had written a letter to the court that he had filed case before the High Court against the order of the court in a civil revision. From the aforesaid order- sheets of the concerned miscellaneous case it is apparent that the court appointed the Arbitrator Sri P.C.N. Shahi without any notice to the opposite parties (appellants here) and on behalf of the appellants there was already a case filed before the High Court, perhaps, in a civil revision. So, it is apparent further that the civil revision must have been filed against the order of the court appointing Sri P. C. N. Shahi as Arbitrator because till then no substantive order was passed by the lower court against the opposite parties appellants. Now it has to be seen whether the appointment of Sri P. C. N. Shahi by the court was justified under the law of Arbitration Act. Section 5 of the Arbitration Act had laid down that whenever there is named Arbitrator the authority of that Arbitrator or umpire shall not be revoked except with the leave of the court, Section 8 of the aforesaid Act has laid down that the authority of the named Arbitrator shall not be revoked unless there is allegation of misconduct on his part etc. and without notice to the otherside. 15 days prior notice was to be served by the party seeking the cancellation of the named Arbitrator upon the opposite party and the court may appoint another Arbitrator after hearing both the parties. 6. and without notice to the otherside. 15 days prior notice was to be served by the party seeking the cancellation of the named Arbitrator upon the opposite party and the court may appoint another Arbitrator after hearing both the parties. 6. The aforesaid ordersheet of the lower court, which I have referred to above, do not indicate that the court had afforded an opportunity to the opposite party-appellants for being heard before appointing Sri P. C. N. Shahi as Arbitrator and without going into the fact whether the named Arbitrator had misconducted himself or in any manner was unfit to continue with the arbitration proceeding before him. So, I am of the opinion that the very appointment of the Arbitrator done by the court was vitiated by legal infirmities and it is not understandable why the court was in such a hurry to appoint Sri P.C.N. Shahi as Arbitrator without securing appearance of the Opposite parties (appellants) and without hearing them. Moreover, the court was already informed that the opposite party (appellants) had filed the civil revision before this High Court and much before the result of the civil revision the Arbitrator submitted his award dated 15.5.94. So, it is further apparent that the Arbitrator almost hurried with the proceeding before him and submitted his award. 7. Admittedly, the appellants were prosecuting their revision before this High Court and the order dated 1.12.94 allowed the revisionists (appellants) to raise their objection to the award submitted by the Arbitrator and disposed of the revision because their application challenging the order of the court appointing the Arbitrator had become in fructuous. In this connection, the contention of the respondents lawyer was that since stay was not granted regarding the appointment of Arbitrator by the court, it was to be presumed that there was no merit in the revision against this order. This submission, however, does not appear to be having any legal rationale. The order dated 1.12.94 passed by the High Court shows that the revisionist was given the scope to challenge this impugned order in an objection to the award. Since the appellants were allowed to make their objection to the award of the Arbitrator, I am of the opinion that they could raise their objection to the award on the grounds among others that the very appointment of the Arbitrator was bad in law. Since the appellants were allowed to make their objection to the award of the Arbitrator, I am of the opinion that they could raise their objection to the award on the grounds among others that the very appointment of the Arbitrator was bad in law. As I have stated above, the appointment of the Arbitrator was done by the court violating the provisions of Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 . When the very appointment of the Arbitrator was legally defective, the entire proceeding taken before the Arbitrator was bad in the eye of law and, therefore, the question of limitation regarding the objection against the award will not also arise. 8. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the judgment rendered by the learned Sub-Judges is also legally bad and, therefore, it cannot be sustained. 9. In the result, this appeal is, allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. The case is, however, remitted back to the lower court to proceed from the initial stage and if at all there is any necessity to appoint an Arbitrator, that shall be done after hearing both the parties and in accordance with the provisions of law as laid down under the Arbitration Act. The court shall dispose of the case, thereafter, in accordance with law.