ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THE DISPUTE WHICH HAD ARISEN BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS REFERRED TO AN ARBITRATOR IN TERMS OF THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE CONTAINED IN AN AGREEMENT WHICH HAD EARLIER BEEN ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THEM. THE ARBITRATOR PASSED AN AWARD. ON AN OBJECTION BEING RAISED BY THE RESPONDENTS THE AWARD WAS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER WAS REFERRED TO A SECOND ARBITRATOR ON 3-4-1995. THE SECOND ARBITRATOR PASSED AN AWARD IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THIS AWARD SHOWS THAT ALTHOUGH THREE CLAIMS WERE RAISED BY THE APPELLANT, NAMELY, CLAIMS PART I, PART II AND PART III, ONLY THE FIRST CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THE ARBITRATOR FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS 4,27,401. NO AWARD WAS PASSED IN RESPECT OF CLAIM II OR III. THE RESPONDENTS AGAIN FILED AN OBJECTION TO THIS AWARD BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. THE OBJECTION WAS REJECTED. THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENTS FROM SUCH REJECTION WAS ALSO DISMISSED. THE RESPONDENTS THEN PREFERRED A REVISION APPLICATION BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. THE HIGH COURT SET ASIDE THE AWARD ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ARBITRATOR HAD ENTERTAINED CLAIM III WHICH WAS BEYOND HIS COMPETENCE AS THE COURT HAD NOT REFERRED CLAIM III TO BE ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE ARBITRATOR. THE HIGH COURT ALSO ASSUMED THAT THE ARBITRATOR HAD PASSED AN AWARD IN RESPECT OF CLAIM III. 3. AS WE HAVE ALREADY INDICATED, CLAIM III WAS EXPRESSLY NEGATIVED BY THE ARBITRATOR. ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE HIGH COURT WAS WRONG IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CLAIM III HAD NOT BEEN REFERRED TO THE ARBITRATOR, WE THINK IT SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT THE HIGH COURT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE INTERFERED WITH THE AWARD OF THE ARBITRATOR ON SUCH BASIS WHEN THE ARBITRATOR HAD NOT PASSED ANY AWARD IN RESPECT OF CLAIM III. 4. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT IS SET ASIDE AND THE ORDERS OF THE TRIAL COURT AND FIRST APPELLATE COURT ARE CONFIRMED.