JUDGMENT : N.K. Mehrotra, J. These three civil revisions involve common issue and the same order dated 28.8.1998, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lucknow in Misc. Cases No. 19 of 1998, 31 of 1996 and 30 of 1996 filed by M/s. Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. against the U.P. Electricity Board under Sections 8(1)(b) and 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for extension of time for giving the award by the Umpire has been impugned. 2. Since the same question is involved in all three revisions, these revisions are being decided by one and the same order. 3. Facts admitted to the parties are that there was an agreement of supply of electricity to the bulk consumers between the parties and there was an arbitration clause in the agreement. When the dispute arose and the revisionist did not appoint any arbitrator, the Plaintiff-Respondent filed an application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, before the Civil Judge, Ghaziabad which was registered as Arbitration Suit No. 470 of 1980, Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. U.P. Electricity Board and another for directing the Defendant-revisionist to file the agreement dated 28.4.1969 in the Court and to refer the matter for an arbitration. The said application was allowed by an order dated 12.4.1983 by the Court of Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, directing the Defendant-revisionist to appoint the arbitrator and umpire within two months. After that Shri S.N. Mathur was nominated as an Arbitrator by the Defendant-revisionist and Shri N. Khetan was appointed as an Arbitrator by the Respondents and Hon'ble Justice V.N. Verma a retired Judge of the High Court was appointed as Umpire. The Arbitrator could not give the award within time and consequently, the entire matter was referred to the Umpire Hon'ble Justice V.N. Verma for his award. Hon'ble Justice Verma expired on 16.10.1986. The Arbitrators appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Srivastava (Retd.) as Umpire on 9.10.1987. 4. When the new Umpire could not give the award within time, an application for extension of time was moved before the Court of Civil Judge, Lucknow and this application has been allowed by the impugned orders in the matters of three agreements between the parties. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has challenged the impugned orders, on two grounds. 4. When the new Umpire could not give the award within time, an application for extension of time was moved before the Court of Civil Judge, Lucknow and this application has been allowed by the impugned orders in the matters of three agreements between the parties. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has challenged the impugned orders, on two grounds. Firstly, that the Court at Lucknow had no jurisdiction because it is the Court at Ghaziabad who has referred the matter to arbitration u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Secondly, the two arbitrators had become functus officio after expiry of the prescribed time and they could not appoint a new Umpire. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. So far as the first point relating to jurisdiction is concerned, it has been conceded by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that it is the Court of Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, who has jurisdiction to extend time under Sections 8 and 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 because the reference was made by the Court of Civil Judge, Ghaziabad. I agree that this is a settled legal position, therefore, I hold that the Civil Judge, Lucknow, had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order extending the time. So far as the consent for appointing second Umpire is concerned, learned Counsel for the Respondent has referred certain documents filed with the counter-affidavit of Shri K.K. Mahendra, Deputy Manager of the Respondent. Annexures-A, B, C and D are the correspondence between the parties and the new Umpire Justice A.S. Srivastava, Annexures-L, M and N are the documents go to show the different orders and proceedings before the new Umpire Justice A.S. Srivastava. These documents, prima facie go to show that new Umpire was appointed with the consent of the revisionist and they have submitted to the jurisdiction of the new Umpire. 7. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has also referred Nalakath Sainuddin Vs. These documents, prima facie go to show that new Umpire was appointed with the consent of the revisionist and they have submitted to the jurisdiction of the new Umpire. 7. Learned Counsel for the opposite party has also referred Nalakath Sainuddin Vs. Koorikadan Sulaiman, AIR 2002 SC 2562 , to show that the revisional court can pass any order in the interest of justice and he has submitted that since the dispute relates to an agreement dated 28.5.1969 and the dispute is pending for the arbitration proceedings since 12.4.1983, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice either to appoint a new arbitrator or to extend the time and if neither of the relief is granted, then the record should be set to the competent court at Ghaziabad for disposal of the pending application within a limited time. 8. In the interest of avoiding the protracted litigation, I am of the opinion that at the time of allowing the revision, it will be benefiting in the circumstances of the case to direct the Civil Judge, Lucknow to transmit the record of Misc. Case Nos. 19 of 1998, 31 of 1996 and 30 of 1996 filed by M/s. Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. to the Court of Civil Judge, Ghaziabad within fifteen days from the date of this order and the Civil Judge, Ghaziabad will decide the application u/s 8 within two months from the date of the receipt of the record. 9. In view of the above, all the three revisions are allowed. The impugned order dated 28.8.1999 passed in all the aforesaid cases i.e. Misc. Case Nos. 19 of 1998, 31 of 1996 and 30 of 1996 are set aside. Civil Judge, Lucknow is directed to transmit the record of the aforesaid three cases within fifteen days from the date of this order, to the Court of Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, who will hear and decide the application for extension of time for the Umpire within two months. 10. Civil Judge, Ghaziabad, shall be free to appoint any other arbitrator in place of Justice A.S. Srivastava after taking three names from each party.