Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present revision petition has been filed by the State of Punjab, challenging the judgment and decree dated November 12, 1992, passed by the learned Trial Court, as well as the judgment in appeal dated May 15, 1993, passed by the learned Additional District Judge. 2. The facts as emerge from the records show that the Contractor-respondent M/s Kuljit Singh and Company was awarded a contract for the construction of a super passage of SYL Canal in the year 1997 by the State Government. In the agreement entered between the parties, there was Clause 63, which provided for resolution of disputes and differences between the parties through arbitration. A dispute arose between the parties. Accordingly, on January 9, 1990, the Contractor requested the Chief Engineer to appoint an Arbitrator as per Clause 63, the Chief Engineer was required to take an action in the matter within 30 days. No such action was taken within the aforesaid stipulated period. On February 22, 1990, as a matter of default, as per the provisions of Clause 63 itself, the Contractor supplied three names to the Chief Engineer out of which one could be named as an arbitrator. Still no action was taken by the Chief Engineer, Consequently, on March 22, 1990, Shri C. Banerjee, Chief Engineer, South Eastern Zone, Delhi Development Authority, was nominated as an Arbitrator by the Contractor himself as per the terms of the agreement. The aforesaid Arbitrator entered into the arbitration proceedings on October 15, 1990. Ultimately, on the basis of the material available before him, the Arbitrator rendered his award dated August 7, 1991. 3. The Contractor thereafter filed an application under Section 14 of the Act, seeking direction to the Arbitrator to file the award and for making the same as a rule of the Court. 4. A notice of the aforesaid application was given to the respondents. The reply was filed by the State of Punjab. Various pleas were taken with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Court as well as the appointment of respondent No. 2 as the sole Arbitrator. However, no objections, whatsoever, were filed by the State of Punjab, against the award dated August 7, 1991. 5. The reply was filed by the State of Punjab. Various pleas were taken with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Court as well as the appointment of respondent No. 2 as the sole Arbitrator. However, no objections, whatsoever, were filed by the State of Punjab, against the award dated August 7, 1991. 5. The learned trial Court noticing that no objections, whatsoever, had been filed by the State of Punjab within the stipulated time against the award dated August 7, 1991, directed the aforesaid award to the made a rule of the Court. 6. An appeal was filed by the State of Punjab against the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court. The learned first Appellate Court, reconsidered the entire matter and still upheld the order of the trial Court. 7. The State of Punjab has now chosen to file the present revision petition. 8. I have heard Shri H.S. Shergill, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, for the petitioner and Shri Ashwani Talwar, the learned counsel for the respondent-Contractor and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 9. It is clear from the perusal of the judgments passed by the learned Courts below that no objections, whatsoever, were filed by the State of Punjab against the award dated August 7, 1991. Although various objections with regard to territorial jurisdiction and appointment of the Arbitrator were raised by the State of Punjab but all the aforesaid objections could not be treated to be the objections filed against the award. In this view of the matter, the learned Courts below were perfectly justified in making the aforesaid award as a rule of the Court. I do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid judgments passed by the Courts below. 10. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition. The same is dismissed.