ORDER Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of the High Court interfering with an order passed by the Appellate Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising out of an arbitration proceeding. The appellant had entered into an agreement with the State of Punjab for certain construction project and dispute having been arisen, in accordance with the arbitration clause, the dispute was referred to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator case to hold that the contract in question not having been rescinded, the State was not entitled to forfeit the security deposit as well as to retain the equipment and materials belonging to the appellant and on that score awarded certain damages. Against the said award the State filed as objection under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act and the contractor filed an application for making the award rule of the Court. The Civil Court on consideration of the entire materials rejected the objection filed by the State and made the award a rule of the Court. The State went up in appeal against the same under Section 39 and the appeal having failed, the State carried the matter in revision to the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment set aside the award as well as the orders passed by the Civil Court on interpreting Clauses 45 and 46 of the agreement and came to the conclusion that the Arbitrator committed gross misconduct in awarding the damages on a misconstruction of the relevant clauses of the Contract by the High Court. 3. Mr. Sachhar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends that under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court was entitled to correct only jurisdictional error and in the absence of any jurisdictional error, the Court exceeded in passing the impugned judgment by reappreciating the facts. On merits also Mr. Sachhar contended that the High Court committed serious error by misconstruing clause 45 of the agreement in question inasmuch as until and unless a contract is rescinded, the State Government cannot exercise any lien over the instruments and materials belonging to the appellant and in forfeiting the security and in awarding damages. 4. Mr. On merits also Mr. Sachhar contended that the High Court committed serious error by misconstruing clause 45 of the agreement in question inasmuch as until and unless a contract is rescinded, the State Government cannot exercise any lien over the instruments and materials belonging to the appellant and in forfeiting the security and in awarding damages. 4. Mr. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Punjab, on the other hand contended that the High Court was justified in interpreting the relevant provisions of the contract and as such there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment requiring interference by this Court. 5. Having considered the relevant submissions and on examining the impugned judgment of the High Court we have no manner of doubt that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in interfering with the Appellate Order in an arbitration proceeding by reappreciating the material on record. Obviously, it does not touch the realm of jurisdiction. That apart, even on construction of the relevant clause of the agreement, more specifically clause 45, we are also of the considered opinion that the High Court was in error in construing the said provision and in holding that the State Government would retain lien over the instrument and materials belonging to the contractor notwithstanding the contract not being terminated. On examining the provisions of clause 45 of the contract we have no manner of doubt that the right to have lien over the plaint, equipment and materials would arise only after due service of notice when the contractor does not rectify the defect and then the contract is terminated by the Engineer Incharge. In the case in hand, admittedly, there has been no order of rescission of the contract as has been noticed by the High Court. Consequently, the High Court interfered with the impugned appellate judgment on an erroneous interpretation of the relevant provisions of the contract. We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and affirmed that of the Appellate Court. The award which has been made a rule of the Court stands as a decree. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. *************** Parallel Citations of other Journals : Sutlej Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2001(6) Supreme 74.