Judgment :- S.Jagadeesan, J. All the appeals are arising out of the common order of the learned Judge dated 24.2.1999 in O.P.Nos.47, 48, 67, 839, and 886 of 1995 and 823 of 1998. 2.For convenience sake, the parties are mentioned as per the rank in O.S.A.No.132 of 134 of 2000. 3.The appellant is the contractor. He entered into three different agreements with the respondent for the execution of the work. As some dispute arose, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. Ultimately the Arbitrator passed an award. 4.The Arbitrator filed O.P.Nos.47, 48 and 67 of 1995 for passing a decree in terms of the Award dated 23.11.1994. 5.The respondent filed O.P.Nos.839 and 886 of 1995 and 823 of 1998 for setting aside the Award of the Arbitrator dated 23.11.1994. 6.The learned Judge by order dated 24.2.1999 dismissed O.P.Nos.839 and 886 of 1995 and 823 of 1998 and allowed O.P.Nos.47, 48 and 67 of 1995 filed by the Arbitrator and passed a decree in terms of the Award. While allowing those O.Ps the learned Judge awarded interest from the date of the decree till the date of realisastion. 7.Since the controversy is in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary for us to deal with the facts elaborately. 8.The respondent did not file any appeal against the order in O.P.47, 48 and 67 of 1995 filed by the Arbitrator for passing a decree in terms of the Award. All the appeals O.S.A.142, 149 and 170 of 1999 by the respondents are only against the common order in O.P.Nos.839 and 886 of 1995 and 823 of 1998 which were filed by the respondent for setting aside the Award. The respondent is aggrieved by the order of the learned Judge in dismissing the said O.Ps. 9.So far as the appellant is concerned, his grievance is the learned Judge awarded interest only from the date of order in O.Ps., till the date of realisation and failed to award interest for the period from the date of the award till the date of the order in the O.Ps. Hence he preferred the appeals O.S.A.Nos.132 to 134 of 2000. 10.The contractor, the appellant in O.S.A.No.132 to 134 of 2000 is one of the respondents in the O.P.Nos.47, 48 and 67 of 1995 filed by the Arbitrator for passing the decree in terms of the award. Hence he preferred the appeals O.S.A.Nos.132 to 134 of 2000. 10.The contractor, the appellant in O.S.A.No.132 to 134 of 2000 is one of the respondents in the O.P.Nos.47, 48 and 67 of 1995 filed by the Arbitrator for passing the decree in terms of the award. The learned Judge while passing the decree, awarded interest in favour of the appellant from the date of the decree till the date of realisation. No appeal was preferred against any one of the decrees in the O.P.Nos.47, 48 and 67 of 1995. Consequently the same became final. 11.The appellant also filed appeals O.S.A.No.132 to 134 of 2000 against the dismissal of the O.P.Nos.839, 886 of 1995 and 823 of 1998 filed by the respondent for setting aside the award of the Arbitrator. It is not known as to how the appellant is aggrieved against the decrees in those O.P.Nos.839 and 886 of 1995 and 823 of 1998. The appeals themselves are not maintainable. 12.The appellant having allowed the decrees in O.P.Nos.47, 48 and 67 of 1995, wherein the interest was awarded, to become final, by not challenging the same, the appellant is not entitled for any relief in these appeals. 13.So far as the appeals O.S.A.No.142, 149 and 170 of 1999 are concerned, though the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the Arbitrator has awarded the amount under the head of 'loss of profit' and the same cannot be sustained, we are unable to go into the same by the conduct of the respondent in not filing appeals against the order in O.P.Nos.47, 48 and 67 of 1995 filed by the Arbitrator. The said O.Ps were filed by the Arbitrator for passing a decree in terms of the Award and the learned Judge allowed those O.Ps. 14.When the O.P filed by the Arbitrator as well as the respondents were disposed of by common order, the non filing of the appeal against the order of the learned Judge in O.P.Nos.47, 48 and 67 of 1995 would become constructive resjudicata since the decree in those O.Ps became final and as such it is not open to the respondent to challenge the order in the other O.Ps alone which were filed by the respondents and dismissed by the court. 15.It may be worth to draw assistance from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PREMIER TYRES LTD. 15.It may be worth to draw assistance from the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PREMIER TYRES LTD. v.THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ( AIR 1993 SC 1202 ) where the learned Judges held as follows: "Although none of these decisions were concerned with a situation where no appeal was filed against the decision in connected suit but it appears that where an appeal arising out of connected suits is dismissed on merits the other cannot be heard, and has to be dismissed. The question is what happens where no appeal is filed, as in this case from the decree in connected suit. Effect of non filing of appeal against a judgment or decree is that it become final. This finality can be taken away only in accordance with law. Same consequences follows when a judgment or decree in a connected suit is not appealed from." 16.In LONANKUTTY v. THOMAN ( AIR 1976 SC 1645 ) the learned Judges of the Apex Court held as follows: "Respondents did not file any further appeal against the decree passed by the District Court in the appeals arising out of their suit. They filed a second appeal in the High Court only as against the decree passed by the District Court in A.S.66 of 1958 which arose out of the decree passed by the trial Court in the appellant's suit. Thus, the decision of the District Court rendered in the appeal arising out of the respondents' suit became final and conclusive." On this short ground, the appeals O.S.A.142, 149 and 170 of 1999 filed by the respondent are liable to be dismissed and accordingly the same are dismissed. 17.In the result, O.S.A.Nos.132 to 134 of 2000 as well as O.S.A.Nos.142, 149 and 170 of 1999 are dismissed. CMP.Nos.13829, 14184 and 15553 of 1999 and 14837 to 14842 of 2002 are closed.