ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. RELEVANT FACTS FOR DETERMINATION OF THIS CONTROVERSY ARE: THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS REFERRED FOR ARBITRATION. THE ARBITRATOR DISMISSED THE CLAIM FILED BY THE RESPONDENT, AGGRIEVED AGAINST WHICH THE RESPONDENT FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE ACT"). THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE AWARD PASSED BY THE ARBITRATOR AND WENT INTO THE MERITS AND DECREED THE CLAIM OF THE RESPONDENT IN ITS ENTIRETY. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE SINGLE JUDGE, THE PETITIONER FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE DIVISION BENCH ALONG WITH AN APPLICATION TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE. BY WAY OF AN INTERIM ORDER, THE DIVISION BENCH STAYED THE EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 16-6-2003 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE PETITIONER DEPOSITS A SUM OF RS 25 LAKHS, WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AWARDED WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX WEEKS. THE RESPONDENT WAS PUT AT LIBERTY TO WITHDRAW THE SAME SUBJECT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PROTHONOTARY AND SENIOR MASTER. 3. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER, THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE SINGLE JUDGE HAD ERRED IN SUBSTITUTING AND SETTING UP THE AWARD IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPONDENT IN EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ACT. THAT THE SAME COULD NOT BE DONE IN EXERCISE OF THE APPELLATE POWERS UNDER THE ACT. THAT IT IS NOT COVERED BY ANY OF THE CLAUSES OF SECTION 34. THE POINT RAISED BY THE APPELLANT SEEMS PRIMA FACIE TO BE CORRECT, BUT WE EXPRESS NO FINAL OPINION ON THE SAME. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE DIVISION BENCH AND GRANT ABSOLUTE STAY OF THE ORDER OF THE SINGLE JUDGE DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT. 4. THE CIVIL APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY.