Judgment Govind Mathur, J.—In the year 1983, the District Rural Development Authority, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as “the DRDA”) by executing an agreement undertook the work of drilling for tube-well @ Rs.230/- per meter at the agricultural fields of certain agriculturists including the mother of the appellants. The cost of drilling was revised by the DRDA from Rs.230/- per meter to Rs.435/- per meter in the year 1989, thus, the agriculturists including the mother of the appellants preferred writ petitions before this Court and those came to be disposed of by a common order dt. 16.04.1992 with directions:— “Therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to enter into this controversy that as to what rate is to be charged, we leave it to the State Government to refer the matter to arbitration. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the State Government shall refer the matter to the arbitrator for deciding that as to what should be the rate for drilling charges. In most of the cases a stay has been granted by this Court on payment of 50% of the price, the Government shall not seal the tube-wells. We direct that all the petitioners shall deposit 75% of the amount of the final bill and the petitioners are given two months’ time to deposit the amount. Those who have already deposited 50% of the amount shall deposit the remaining amount. In the event of not depositing the 75% of the amount of the final bill within two months from today, it will be open for the respondent State to resume the tube-well. With these observations, this writ petition as well as the writ petitions mentioned in Schedule ‘A’ appended to this order are disposed off.” 2. In pursuant to the order aforesaid the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur was appointed as the arbitrator on 25.06.1993. The arbitrator called upon the parties to the dispute to submit the claim, however, no such claim was ever filed by mother of the appellants as the notice issued by the arbitrator was not served upon her. 3. In view of the fact that no claim was filed by the appellants, there was no question of filing any reply to the claim by the DRDA. 3. In view of the fact that no claim was filed by the appellants, there was no question of filing any reply to the claim by the DRDA. The arbitrator by treating case of the mother of the appellants also as similar to other agriculturists made and signed an award on 04.09.1995 holding her liable to pay the revised drilling charges. By an order dt. 22.04.1996 the award dt. 04.09.1995 was sent to the Court of District Judge, Jodhpur as per the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1940”) for passing judgment and issuing decree. Learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur by order dt. 29.09.2007 modified the award and also made the rule of Court by making order as follows:— ßifj.kkeLo:i ,dy e/;LFk ;kfu lEHkkxh; vk;qä] tks/kiqj }kjk vkjchVsªÓku dsl uEcj 26@1995 esa fnukad 04-09-1995 dks ikfjr iapkV esa C;kt ds lEca/k eas laÓkks/ku fd;k tkdj vknsÓk fn;k tkrk gS fd vizkFkhZx.k dks izkFkhZx.k ls ,dy e/;LFk }kjk fnyok;h xbZ jkfÓk ij 12 izfrÓkr lk/kkj.k okf"kZd C;kt izkIr djus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA C;kt ds lacaèk esa fd;s x;s mä laÓkks/ku ds lkFk fnukad 04-09-1995 ds iapkV dks rule of Court cuk;k tkrk gSA ipkZ fMØh blh vuq:i rS;kj fd;k tk,AÞ 4. By this appeal under Sec. 39 of the Act of 1940 a challenge is given to the order dt. 29.09.2007 mainly on the ground that learned Additional District Judge erred while passing the judgment and decree dt. 29.09.2007 without having any valid award by the arbitrator as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Act of 1940. It is also urged that the learned Additional District Judge also erred by modifying the award in the terms of awarding interest though it is not prescribed in the agreement in question. 5. On the other hand, the main contention of counsel for the respondents is that no dispute as a matter of fact now survives in light of the judgment dt. 01.12.2006 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.544/2006 affirming the award impugned in other similar cases. A certified copy of the order aforesaid is placed on record and from perusal thereof it is quite clear that the award impugned was subject matter in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.544/2006 also and this Court while rejecting the appeal affirmed the award dt. Appeal No.544/2006 affirming the award impugned in other similar cases. A certified copy of the order aforesaid is placed on record and from perusal thereof it is quite clear that the award impugned was subject matter in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.544/2006 also and this Court while rejecting the appeal affirmed the award dt. 04.09.1995 and also grant of interest by learned civil Court. 6. Be that as it may, the controversy involved in this appeal is required to be looked into on basis of the facts involved in present case as the basic argument of counsel for the appellants is that the arbitrator proceeded against the appellants ex-parte though no notice was served upon them (on Smt. Suraj Devi, mother of the present appellants) and no claim was ever filed on their behalf. It is also asserted that as a matter of fact no award as per provisions of the Act of 1940 was ever sent to the District Judge and the District Judge acted upon a photocopy of the award sent by the arbitrator as per provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act of 1940. 7. I have perused the record of the arbitrator and also of the civil Court. From the record it is apparent that no notice at all was served upon Smt. Suraj Devi. The returned notice simply mentions that Smt. Suraj Devi wife of Pukhrajji was not available at her residence as she was gone to her paternal house in Maharashtra. The process server affixed a copy of the notice at her residence and on basis of that the arbitrator without verifying the position about service of notice proceeded against the appellants. It is also apparent from the order sheets of the arbitrator that without verifying the fact about service of notice and also in spite of the fact that no claim was filed on behalf of the appellants, the arbitrator proceeded against appellant Smt. Suraj Devi by treating her case similar to the case of other agriculturists. The award passed in case of other agriculturists also made applicable for the present appellants. The case may be similar to the others, but to decide the case of the appellants, an opportunity to be heard is essential. The arbitrator before proceeding against the appellants should have satisfied himself regarding service of the notice issued. The award passed in case of other agriculturists also made applicable for the present appellants. The case may be similar to the others, but to decide the case of the appellants, an opportunity to be heard is essential. The arbitrator before proceeding against the appellants should have satisfied himself regarding service of the notice issued. From perusal of the record of the case it is apparent that learned arbitrator proceeded ex-parte against the appellants though no notice was served upon them and that prevented the appellants from filing any claim before the arbitrator. The arbitrator acted in most haste manner and that resulted into ex-parte proceedings against the appellants without service of notice. Such ex-parte proceeding is absolutely illegal and any action consequent thereto is certainly illegal. Learned Additional District Judge while modifying the award and also making it rule of Court failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. 8. From record of the Court of learned Additional District Judge and also the arbitrator, it is also apparent that as a matter of fact the arbitrator has signed a photocopy of the award and not the original award in the case of present appellants. 9. In view of whatever discussed above, the order dt. 29.09.2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Jodhpur and the award dt. 04.09.1995 passed by the sole arbitrator are bad in eye of law, thus, are declared illegal and same are quashed. The matter is remanded for arbitration afresh in the terms of the judgment of this Court dt. 16.04.1992. Instead of referring the matter to the State Government for appointing arbitrator again, I consider it appropriate to continue the Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur as arbitrator in present dispute. No further notice is required to be issued to the appellants and it shall be open for them to file a claim as per the provisions of the Act of 1940 before the arbitrator on or before 07.03.2008. 10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.