ORDER : The appellant herein was given contract by the State of Karnataka for construction of Radial Crest gates for the Narayanpur Dam and for that purpose, an agreement was executed between them. Clause 69-A of the agreement provided for arbitration in case of any dispute or differences in respect of a claim which could be referred to an Arbitrator for adjudication. For referring the matter to arbitration, one of the Arbitrator was to be appointed by the State, the other by the Contractor and the third by the Chairman, Central Water Commission. It appears that certain disputes arose, where for the appellant herein sought for reference to arbitrators. The matter was so referred. Consequently, the Arbitrators on 27.9.1984 gave an Award, wherein the sum of Rs. 13,07,095/- was awarded to the appellant against the respondent. Subsequently, the award was filed before the Court for being made Rule of the Court. The respondent herein filed objection under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Some of the objections were accepted by the Civil Court as a result whereof the amount awarded to the appellant under the Award was modified to Rs. 8,75,889 alongwith six percent interest from the date of the order. 2. It is not disputed that the said proceeding has attained finality and the State of Karnataka has paid the entire amount due under the Award to the appellant. Subsequently, the respondent herein filed a suit before the Civil Judge, Raichur for recovery of money alleged to be due against the appellant, part of the same as liquidated and part of the claim towards the price of certain machinery allegedly given to the appellant and not returned by it. The appellant on receipt of the summons, filed an Interlocutory Application before the learned Civil Judge for further proceeding in the said suit under Section 34 of the Act. The said application was rejected. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court, but the same was dismissed. Against the said order and judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the appellant is only aggrieved to the extent that the High Court has held that the arbitration proceedings were not available to the State Government in terms of Clauses 68-A and 69-A of the Arbitration agreement. 4. Against the said order and judgment, the appellant is in appeal before us. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the appellant is only aggrieved to the extent that the High Court has held that the arbitration proceedings were not available to the State Government in terms of Clauses 68-A and 69-A of the Arbitration agreement. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that that the application filed by the appellant Section 34 of the Act was totally misconceived and it was rightly rejected by the trial court and upheld by the High Court. In fact the Arbitration proceeding has attained finality and thus, it was only open to the appellant herein to raise all contentions which are available to him under law in the suit itself. The view taken by the High Court that under Clauses 68-A and 69-A of the agreement, the remedy by way of arbitration was not available to the State of Karnataka appears to be debatable. We, therefore, direct that it would be open to the appellant to raise all objections in the said suit including the interpretation of the arbitration agreement, which could be determined on their own merits. 5. With these observations, the appeal stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.