JUDGMENT After advancing argument on 30.04.2002, no further argument is being advanced by the appellant. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by adjourning the Misc. Appeal any further. 2. This Misc. Appeal has been filed challenging to the order dated 05.08.1986 passed by learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Bargarh in Misc. Case No. 74 of 1978. The facts scenario of the case is as follows : Appellant as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 121 of 1973 purporting it to be an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short ‘the Act’). He made the prayer to direct the defendants to file the original agreement and to appoint an Arbitrator to settle the dispute relating to measure¬ment and final payment on the completed contract regarding a construction of a goods storage godown of 5000 tonnes capacity at Kesingha, Phase-III. Defendants entered appearance and filed written statement. On consent of the parties one after the other some Government Employees were appointed as the Arbitrator. Ultimately Kumari K.P.Sarojini, the Arbitrator passed the award on 08.09.1977 mentioning the claims and the findings. According to that award, defendants were awarded to pay a sum of Rs. 2,175/- (Rupees two thousand one hundred and seventy five only) together with the interest and the rest of the claim of the plaintiff was rejected. It was a non-speaking award. That award was challenged before the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Bargarh. After hearing the parties, perusing the records and the evidence he held that the award was passed in accordance with law and there is no infirmity therein for interference. 3. Appellant has taken various grounds in challenging that award. Before dealing with that, it is appropriate to mention that reference was made pursuant to the provision in Sub-section (4) of Section 20 read with Section 23 of the Act. Section 30 provides the ground for setting aside the award, viz. if the Arbitrator or Umpire has misconducted himself in course of the proceeding, if an award has been made as against the order of the Court superseding the arbitration or after it being invalid under Section 35 and if an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid. Section 30 provides the ground for setting aside the award, viz. if the Arbitrator or Umpire has misconducted himself in course of the proceeding, if an award has been made as against the order of the Court superseding the arbitration or after it being invalid under Section 35 and if an award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid. Looking to the grounds advanced in the appeal, it appears that appellant challenges the award on the last ground and not the two proceeding grounds, in as much as the allegation of misconduct is not substantiated by any fact or evidence. Appellant states that evidence adduced by the parties was not duly considered. In that respect the trial Court, on analysis of such factual aspect, does not agree with the contention of the appellant. Similarly, appellant urges that plaintiff was not provided with sufficient opportunity of adducing evidence. That contention of the appellant has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that no such evidence is forthcoming of denial of opportunity. Appellant also urges that no ground was assigned in support of the awards on each item. That cannot be termed as illegal once an Arbitrator has jurisdiction to pass a non-speaking award. Under such circumstance it is seen that learned Sub-ordinate Judge, on due consideration of the application of the appellant, did not interfere with the award passed by the Arbitrator and, therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the same. Accordingly the Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Send back the L.C.R. to the Court below immediately. Appeal dismissed.