JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - This is first appeal by The Punjab State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (Markfed), Ferozepur assailing judgment dated 22.09.2011 passed by learned District Judge, Ferozepur, thereby dismissing appellant’s petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short – the Act) challenging Award dated 17.05.2010 passed by Arbitrator Mohan Lal regarding dispute between appellant and respondent no.1 Miller. 2. Appellant entered into agreements for two years separately with respondent no.1 for custom milling of paddy of the appellant. Disputes arose between the parties. Some amounts were deducted by the appellant from the payments of respondent no.1. Accordingly, respondent no.1 filed civil suit for recovery of deducted amounts. Appellant herein moved application under Section 8 of the Act in the said suit for referring the dispute to Arbitrator. The said application was allowed and the dispute was referred to Arbitrator. The Arbitrator gave the Award dated 17.05.2010. 3. Appellant herein filed objection under Section 34 of the Act against Award of the Arbitrator alleging that the reference to the Arbitrator was time barred, and therefore, only remedy available to respondent no.1 was to file suit for recovery. It was also averred that claim petition filed by respondent no.1 was unsigned, and therefore, there was no valid claim petition. It was also pleaded that the Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction while deciding the matter of late submission of documents by respondent no.1, for which the amounts had been rightly deducted by the appellant. It was also alleged that Award is not reasoned one. 4. Respondent no.1 controverted the grounds taken by the appellant to challenge the Award. It was pleaded that the dispute was referred to Arbitrator on appellant’s application filed under Section 8 of the Act in suit, which had been filed by respondent no.1 for recovery of the due amount. It was also pleaded that when defect of claim petition filed before the Arbitrator being unsigned came to the notice of respondent no.1, an application was moved along with duly signed claim petition and affidavit, which was accepted by the Arbitrator and consequently, the defect stood cured. It was also alleged that Award is legal and valid. Grounds to challenge the same were controverted. 5. Learned District Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 22.09.2011, has dismissed the petition filed by appellant under Section 34 of the Act. It was also alleged that Award is legal and valid. Grounds to challenge the same were controverted. 5. Learned District Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 22.09.2011, has dismissed the petition filed by appellant under Section 34 of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, instant appeal has been preferred. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 7. Counsel for the appellant contended that reference to Arbitrator could be made within one year of the expiry of the contract, but was made much after the expiry of said limitation period of one year. The contention does not lie in the mouth of the appellant. The appellant alleged in its petition under Section 34 of the Act that the only remedy for respondent no.1 was to have filed suit for recovery. The appellant, while taking this objection, perhaps forgot that respondent no.1, in fact, filed suit for recovery and it was at the instance of the appellant itself that the dispute was referred to the Arbitrator. The appellant itself filed application under Section 8 of the Act in the aforesaid suit. Thereupon, the dispute was referred to Arbitrator. Consequently, the aforesaid objection of the appellant is completely absurd, misconceived and meritless. 8. Counsel for the appellant next contended that as per terms of the contract, respondent no.1 was liable to pay interest for delayed period of late submission of relevant documents and the Arbitrator has allowed the claim of respondent no.1 in violation of the said express terms and condition of the contract, and therefore, the Award is liable to be set aside. Reference was made to judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ONGC Ltd. vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. reported as (2003) 5 SCC 705 to contend that where terms of the agreement specify the damages, the same has to be given effect to. 9. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted. 10. The appellant pleaded in the objection petition that Arbitrator exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the matter regarding late submission of documents, for which the amount had rightly been deducted by the appellant as per terms and conditions of the agreement. 9. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted. 10. The appellant pleaded in the objection petition that Arbitrator exceeded its jurisdiction while deciding the matter regarding late submission of documents, for which the amount had rightly been deducted by the appellant as per terms and conditions of the agreement. However, the Arbitrator cannot be said to have exceeded his jurisdiction while deciding the said matter because it was within the domain and jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to have interpreted the relevant clause of the agreement and to have decided the dispute accordingly. The Arbitrator has done so. Consequently, it cannot be said that the Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction. Civil Court does not sit as Court of appeal over the Award of Arbitrator to re-adjudicate the dispute, which has been adjudicated upon by the Arbitrator. Consequently, the aforesaid contention raised by the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this appeal. Objection petition filed under Section 34 of the Act by the appellant has been rightly dismissed by learned District Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------