( 1 ) ADMIT. Mr MB Gandhi learned advocate waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the opponent. With the consent of the parties, this first appeal is disposed of finally today. ( 2 ) THIS first appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 challenging the order passed by the learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 20th October 2005 by which the learned Judge has set aside the award given by the arbitrator on 30th March 1994. ( 3 ) THE opponent herein is a statutory corporation and is engaged in the business of engineer and allied activities such as construction and maintenance of buildings, etc. For the purpose of construction activity the contract was given to the present appellant, M/s Indus Engineering and Construction on stipulated terms. Since a dispute arose in connection with the work in question and about payment, the matter was referred to sole arbitrator of the respondent-company. The arbitrator thereafter declared his award. The present appellant gave an application i. e Civil Misc. Application No. 94 of 1994 for making the said award as the Rule of the Court and the same is pending. The respondent herein, in the meanwhile, submitted objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by way of separate application, which is registered as Civil Misc. Application No. 119 of 1994. The Court is, however, informed that so far as the application of the present appellant being Civil Misc. Application No. 94 of 1994, which is an application for making the award of the Arbitrator as a rule of the Court, is concerned the same is still pending. The learned Judge has upheld the objections raised by the respondent regarding the award of the arbitrator and by the impugned order has set aside the award of the arbitrator. It is the aforesaid order of the learned trial Judge, which is impugned in this first appeal. The learned Judge has upheld the objections raised by the respondent regarding the award of the arbitrator and by the impugned order has set aside the award of the arbitrator. It is the aforesaid order of the learned trial Judge, which is impugned in this first appeal. ( 4 ) IT is submitted by learned advocate, Mr Bharda that the learned trial Judge has not given detailed reasons except observing that the authorities cited by the other side are applicable to the facts of the case and that the arbitrator has not acted as per the prescribed procedure and that the award of the arbitrator is not just and proper and that the same is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and good conscience and on that basis the award was set aside. ( 5 ) LEARNED advocate Mr MB Gandhi submitted that it may be true that appropriate reasons are not given by the learned trial Judge while coming to the conclusion as to how the award of the Arbitrator is contrary to the principles of natural justice, but he has stated that the decisions which are cited by the respondents are applicable to the facts of the case. ( 6 ) I have gone through the record and proceedings which are called for from the trial Court. In my view, when the Court was deciding the application for setting aside the award of the Arbitrator the Court was required to give its own independent reasons by assessing the material on record and by giving finding on the same. In the operative part of the impugned order the learned Judge has observed prima facie that the Arbitrator has not acted as per the procedure. When the Court is deciding the matter finally, there is no scope of giving finding on prima facie basis. That apart, in his reasoning part the learned Judge has not stated as to in which manner the Arbitrator has not acted as per the procedure and as to how the award is contrary to the principles of natural justice. That aspect is required to be incorporated in the reasoning part of the learned Judge so that it can be appreciated as to on particular aspect the learned Judge has set aside the award. That aspect is required to be incorporated in the reasoning part of the learned Judge so that it can be appreciated as to on particular aspect the learned Judge has set aside the award. The learned Judge has not given detailed reasons for coming to such conclusion while giving his finding on the application. That apart, when the application of the present appellant being Civil Misc. Application No. 94 of 1994 is pending regarding making the award of the Arbitrator as rule of the Court, the Court should have disposed of both the applications together and should have disposed of the same by a common order. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the present appeal is allowed by remanding the matter back to the trial Court. It is clarified that on the merits of the issues this Court has not given any opinion. Accordingly, both the applications i. e. Civil Misc. Application No. 119 of 1994 and 94 of 1994 may be heard and may be disposed of by way of common order and while deciding the applications proper reasons may be given by the trial Court. The observations made by the trial Court in the impugned order may not be taken into account while deciding the applications afresh and such applications be decided on its own merits de novo. ( 7 ) AT this stage, Mr Bharda for the appellant submitted that the objections are already filed to Civil Misc. Application No. 94 of 1994. He however submitted that permission may be granted to the appellant to file such objections in the present application also. Such objections shall be filed latest by 28. 02. 2007. The trial Court thereafter shall proceed with the matters as indicated hereinabove and decide the same as early as possible. ( 8 ) IT is agreed by both the sides that it will not be necessary to issue summons by the trial Court and both the sides may accordingly appear before the trial Court and put their appearance on or before 15th February 2007 by filing purshis to the effect that they were initially appearing and they are now appearing in the matter so that no further time may be consumed by issuing the process. ( 9 ) THIS appeal from order is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.