JUDGMENT 1. - Instant appeal is preferred against the order dated 11.11.1999 passed by District Judge, Jaipur City in Civil Misc. Application (Arbitration) No. 191/1999 modifying the award passed by Sole Arbitrator on 17.06.1999. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Sole Arbitrator had awarded interest at the rate of 12% on the claim amount determined by him, but without assigning any reason learned District Judge, Jaipur City reduced the rate of interest to 9%. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered in Paradip Port Trust & others v. Unique Builders, 2001 WLC (SC) Civil 196 , wherein it has been held that when no mistake on face of award and in view of documents appended or incorporated thereto, award could not be set aside even with respect to interest part of award. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and contended that after considering the entire facts, learned District Judge has rightly reduced the rate of interest. 5. I have pondered over the submissions made at Bar. It is not disputed that Sole Arbitrator is competent to grant interest while making an award. In Ram Nath International Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., AIR 1998 Supreme Court 367 , Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that arbitrator not debarred from granting interest in terms of agreement and power can be exercised analogous to Section 34, Civil Procedure Code. It is also held that grant of interest is question of discretion of Arbitrator and can be granted to do complete justice between parties. In Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa & others v. G.C. Roy, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 732 , it has been held that where the agreement between parties does not prohibit grant of interest and where a party claims interest and that dispute is referred to the Arbitrator, he shall have the power to award interest pendente lite. 6. Here in this case, Sole Arbitrator awarded interest pendente lite at the rate of 12% which has been reduced by the District Judge, Jaipur City to 9%, which is not tenable in view of the above discussion. No mistake, apparent on the face of award, appears in regard to the rate of interest granted by Sole Arbitrator. 6. Here in this case, Sole Arbitrator awarded interest pendente lite at the rate of 12% which has been reduced by the District Judge, Jaipur City to 9%, which is not tenable in view of the above discussion. No mistake, apparent on the face of award, appears in regard to the rate of interest granted by Sole Arbitrator. I am, therefore, of the view that learned District Judge, Jaipur City had wrongly interfered with the discretion of Sole Arbitrator in this case. Consequently, this appeal is allowed to the extent that appellant will get the interest pendente lite at the rate of 12% per annum.Appeal allowed. *******