Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. 2) In both these civil revisions common question has been raised between the parties, as such, the same are being decided together. 3) Brief facts of the case are that in the year 1968-69, tenders were floated by the revisionist for laying sewer line in Jwalapur and Kankhal, Haridwar. Contract No. 35/SE/1969-70 was awarded to respondent M/s Kanti Prasad Purshottam Das, for Jwalapur branch sewer line and Contract No. 31/E/E/1968-69 was awarded to respondent Purshottam Das for Kankhal branch line. The revisionist gave notice to the contractors on 16.05.1969, as work was not completed by them on time. It appears that the two contractors submitted their claims to Chief Engineer of the revisionist for settlement in terms of Clause 24 of the agreement between the parties. The claims were rejected by the Chief Engineer of the revisionist on 05.04.1972, whereafter, the contractors (present respondents) after giving notice to the revisionist moved application under Section 8 of Arbitration Act, 1940 before the Civil Judge, Saharanpur, for appointment of Arbitrator (Haridwar was part of District Saharanpur at that point of time), where upon one Avinash Chandra was appointed Arbitrator, who gave his award on 11.07.1972. It appears that both the sides (revisionist and the contractors) filed their objections to said award and the same was set-aside in the year 1978, and one Yadunandan Bhargav was appointed new Arbitrator. Admittedly said Arbitrator did not complete his job for two years. Finally, third Arbitrator namely S.P. Gangal was appointed in the year 1984, with the consent of the parties, who gave two separate awards in respect of two separate contracts. Suit No. 53 of 1991, arose out of Contract No. 35, while Suit No. 54 of 1991, arose out of Contract No. 31. The contractors filed their applications for making awards as Rule of Court, and revisionist filed its objections for setting aside the awards under Section 30/33 of Arbitration Act, 1940. Misc. Case No. 41 of 1991 pertains to Suit No. 53 of 1991, and Misc. Case No. 42 of 1991, pertains to Suit No. 54 of 1991. Learned Civil Judge, Roorkee, after hearing the parties, decided both the suits vide his separate orders passed on 18.03.1994. By said two orders of the same date objections registered as Misc. Case No. 41 of 1991, in Suit No. 53 of 1991, and objections registered as Misc. Case No. 42 of 1991, pertains to Suit No. 54 of 1991. Learned Civil Judge, Roorkee, after hearing the parties, decided both the suits vide his separate orders passed on 18.03.1994. By said two orders of the same date objections registered as Misc. Case No. 41 of 1991, in Suit No. 53 of 1991, and objections registered as Misc. Case No. 42 of 1991, in Suit No. 54 of 1991, were rejected by the trial court. The revisionist challenged both the judgment and orders passed by the trial court, and the Misc. Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1998, and Misc. Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998, were decided by the appellate court vide impugned order dated 20.10.2010, upholding the orders passed by the trial court. Hence these revisions. 4) Learned counsel for the revisionist drew attention of this Court to Clause 24 of the Agreement between the parties, which reads as under:- “Decision of Chief Engineer to be final- Except where otherwise specified in this contract, the decision of the Chief Engineer for the time being shall be final, conclusive and binding on parties to the contract upon all questions relating to the meaning of the specifications, drawings and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work, or as to any other question, claim right, matter or thing, whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relating to the contract, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions, or otherwise concerning the works, or the execution or failure to execute the same, whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or the sooner determination thereof of the contract” 5) Referring to principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Nav Bharat Construction Company (2005) 11 SCC Page 197, it is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the above mentioned clause in the agreement cannot be said to be an Arbitration Clause, as such, the award passed by the Arbitrator, could not have been made Rule of the Court. Nav Bharat Construction Company (2005) 11 SCC Page 197, it is argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the above mentioned clause in the agreement cannot be said to be an Arbitration Clause, as such, the award passed by the Arbitrator, could not have been made Rule of the Court. 6) Having considered submission of learned counsel for the revisionist and after going through the case law referred, this Court finds that undoubtedly, above mentioned clause 24 in the agreement between the revisionist and the contractors, cannot be said to be an Arbitration Clause and no Arbitrator could have been appointed by taking shelter of said clause. However, from the law laid down in State of Rajasthan Vs. Nav Bharat Constrution Company (Supra) itself it is clear that where the parties to agreement have submitted to arbitration and did not raise any objection to the appointment of the Arbitrator, nor questioned his jurisdiction for a long time, rather consented to the appointment of arbitrator, it is not open for them to challenge the final award thereafter. 7) It is relevant to mention here that the contracts in the present case are of the year 1968-69. The first Arbitrator (Avinash Chandra) in both the cases appears to have been appointed in the year 1972, on the application of the Contractors under Section 8 of Arbitration Act, 1940, and against his award admittedly both the parties filed objections and after getting the award set aside got appointed second Arbitrator (Yadunandan Bhargav) in the year 1978, who did not complete his job for more than two years. From the perusal of the impugned orders it further reveals that the third Arbitrator namely Shri S.P. Gangal was appointed with the consent of the parties in the year 1984, in both the matters, who gave separate awards in respect of the two disputes relating to separate contracts mentioned above, on 05.03.1991. 8) In the above scenario, this Court is of the view that the courts below have committed no error of law in not rejecting the awards on the ground that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction. 8) In the above scenario, this Court is of the view that the courts below have committed no error of law in not rejecting the awards on the ground that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction. 9) For the reasons as discussed above, both these revisions are liable to be dismissed, and are hereby dismissed, with the observation that the revisionist shall be liable to pay interest only @ 9% per annum on the sum awarded by the Arbitrator w.e.f. 15.03.1991, instead of 12% per annum.