JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. - Appellant Babu Ram (here-in-after referred to as petitioner) remained unsuccessful before the learned Single Judge in challenging award, Annexure P-1, dated March 20, 1974 as also orders, Annexures P-7 to P-10 passed by various authorities as CWP No. 1862 of 1981 filed by him found no favour with the learned Single Judge and came to be dismissed vide orders dated September 29, 1988. Hence present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent. 2. Brief facts of the case reveal that petitioner was working as Salesman with third respondent, namely, Gondiana Cooperative Agriculture Service Society Limited. On account of dispute pertaining to loss and damage of fertilizer stock, arbitration case was referred against the petitioner by the Management of third respondent under the directions of the Cooperative Department. Inspector, Cooperative Societies was appointed as Arbitrator for settlement of the dispute. Vide award rendered by the Arbitrator, principal amount of Rs. 72,149.02 was held payable by the petitioner to the respondent Society. However, insofar as interest is concerned, respondent No. 3 was to pay the same from July 31, 1972 to March 20, 1974. The said society was also to pay interest on the principal amount from March 20, 1974 onwards. Constrained, petitioner filed an appeal against the award dated March 20, 1974 before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal but his appeal was dismissed vide order dated February 11, 1976. Order with regard to payment of principal and interest, as awarded by the Arbitrator, was upheld. Dissatisfied with the order aforesaid, petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Secretary to Government of Haryana, Cooperative Department, Chandigarh, who, after examining the record, quashed the appellate order dated February 11, 1976 and directed respondent No. 2 to decide the appeal in view of observations made in order dated July 28, 1976, Annexure P-3. On remand, however, the appellate authority once again dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated January 11, 1977, Annexure P-4. However, principal amount was reduced to Rs. 67,047.03 but interest was added on the said amount @ 15% per annum and costs of Rs. 15,000/- were also held to be payable by the petitioner. On remand, however, the appellate authority once again dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner vide order dated January 11, 1977, Annexure P-4. However, principal amount was reduced to Rs. 67,047.03 but interest was added on the said amount @ 15% per annum and costs of Rs. 15,000/- were also held to be payable by the petitioner. This constrained, once again, the petitioner to file a revision before the Deputy Secretary to Government of Haryana, who, once again accepted the same and remanded the case to the Deputy Registrar for rehearing of the appeal with directions as contained in his order dated October 14, 1977. On remand, the Deputy Registrar, increased the principal amount from Rs. 67,149.03 to 72,149.03 with interest and costs. It is the case of petitioner that the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal, accepted the reference from the Marketing Society, respondent No. 4 at the same time for the same time and between the same parties and gave award in favour of the Marketing Society and against the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for which the Arbitrator had already given award and against which an appeal was pending. He decided the appeal and reference simultaneously. Aggrieved by orders dated February 12, 1981, Annexure P-9, February 10, 1981, Annexure P- 10, February 6, 1980, Annexure P-7 and P-8 as also award dated July 23, 1974, Annexure P-1, petitioner filed the writ petition with an obviously prayer that the orders aforesaid be set aside. 3. Mr. Roop Chand Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised only one point before us. He contends that, be it appeal or revision, at every stage, it is the petitioner who had agitated the award or the order in appeal. The award makes the petitioner liable to pay only principal amount whereas, as mentioned above, interest was to be paid by the third respondent. In the appeal or revision preferred by the petitioner, if he was not to succeed against the impugned orders, in being absolved of any liability whatsoever, surely, he could not be saddled with the responsibility of paying interest, which, as mentioned above, was the responsibility of third respondent. 4. The argument appears to be attractive in the first blush but when examined in the context of order of remand, same has no merit whatsoever. 4. The argument appears to be attractive in the first blush but when examined in the context of order of remand, same has no merit whatsoever. Order, Annexure P-5, dated October 14, 1977, rendered in revision filed by the petitioner against orders dated January 11, 1977, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies in an appeal preferred by the petitioner would reveal that a direction was given to examine the enquiry report given by Inspector Sher Singh and reassess the quantum of loss due to natural calamity and the extent of damages caused in a particular village by the floods during the year under reference as also the point regarding imposition of interest and costs on the petitioner despite respondent-Society having failed to file an appeal against the earlier orders. The order of remand was specific which was to reconsider both aspects, i.e., case of petitioner on merits that the loss was caused on account of natural calamity as also payment of interest. We do not wish to go into question as to whether it is open to the parties, when a case is remained, even though on a particular point, to urge and raise contentions on the entire case, as in the present case the remand order was not specific on a particular point. On the contrary, the matter was remanded to the concerned authorities to redetermine both the question of liability of petitioner to pay principal as also interest. Having participated in the remand proceedings without any challenge to order, Annexure P-5 at an appropriate stage, petitioner can not new urge that he could not be made to pay the interest, even though the original award made the third respondent to pay the interest. Nothing at all has been shown to us which may absolve the petitioner from payment of interest. 5. Finding no merit in this appeal, we dismiss the same, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.