JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - The present revision petition has been filed against the orders passed by the Courts below making the award rule of the Court. 2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the alleged agreement for making reference to the Arbitrator was a forged and fabricated document and the signatures of the petitioner on the said agreement were forged. 3. It is not dispute that the petitioner in pursuance to the said agreement participated in the proceedings before the Arbitrators and took no steps to challenge the jurisdiction of the Arbitrators by moving appropriate application under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Sain Mittal v. Housing Board, Haryana and others, AIR 2002 SC 1157. The Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that a party who acquiesced to the invalidity by his conduct by participating in proceedings and taking chances therein cannot thereafter object to the award when it goes against him. No other contention was raised before this Court. Accordingly finding no merit, the present revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.