JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 15.2.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 10/1997 whereby the award dated 14.11.1996 passed by the Arbitrator was made rule of Court. 2. The present appeal was listed for hearing on several occasions, however, none was present on behalf of the appellants and this Court vide order dated 26.2.2013 observed that the appeal is getting listed on every hearing day since January 2013, however, no one cared to appear on behalf of the appellants. 3. Learned counsel for respondent has submitted that from last several occasions, no one has been appearing on behalf of the appellants and, therefore, prayed that the matter may be heard on its merit. 4. Since the matter is old one, the same is finally heard. 5. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-firm is a partnership firm which entered into a contract with the appellants valuing 18.30 lacs pertaining to a work for development of tribal area. The respondent-company raised a dispute before the Arbitrator regarding the non-payment of certain dues in respect of works done by company. The matter was referred to the Arbitrator as per the conditions of agreement. 6. The Arbitrator, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, passed the award dated 14.11.1996 directing the appellants to make payment of Rs. 2,49,622/- along with 18% interest. The respondent company thereafter moved an application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1940) before the District Judge, Udaipur for making the arbitration award rule of Court. The District Court transferred the matter to the Court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur wherein the appellants had submitted their objections and prayed for quashing of the award dated 14.11.1996. The learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur after hearing learned counsel for the parties, has rejected the objections raised on behalf of the appellants and made the arbitration award dated 14.11.1996 rule of Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.2.1999. 7. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 15.2.1999, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 8. The learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur after hearing learned counsel for the parties, has rejected the objections raised on behalf of the appellants and made the arbitration award dated 14.11.1996 rule of Court vide judgment and decree dated 15.2.1999. 7. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 15.2.1999, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 8. After perusing the memo of appeal, this Court has found that the appellants have contended that the arbitrator has granted the claims to the respondent for the works which are not covered under the agreement. It is also averred in the memo of appeal that the award passed by the Arbitrator is beyond the scope of reference. A general allegation is also levelled that there exists error apparent on the face of record as the award is passed by the Arbitrator being influenced by the extraneous circumstances while ignoring the material documents and award is not based on any evidence etc. 9. From the careful perusal of memo of appeal, this Court has found that no specific details have been given by the appellants in support of allegation that the Arbitrator had granted the claim for the works which were not covered under the agreement. It is not specified that which work was not covered in the agreement for which the Arbitrator granted claim. It is also not specified in the memo of appeal that how the award passed by the Arbitrator was beyond the scope of reference and which part of the arbitration award is not covered under the reference. It is also not specified that which extraneous circumstances had influenced the Arbitrator while passing the impugned award. The general allegations without specifying instances of illegality were averred in the claim petition. 10. The learned counsel for respondent has argued that the appellants have failed to show any illegality in the award passed by the Arbitrator and also failed to show how the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge is not in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the reasonableness of the reasons, given by the Arbitrator in making the award, cannot be challenged as the jurisdiction of the Court in examining the correctness of the arbitral award is limited and the Court has no jurisdiction to sit in appeal and examine the correctness of the award on its merit. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar & Anr., reported in AIR 1987 SC 2316 . (ii) Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1989 SC 777 . (iii) Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal & Anr., reported in AIR 1989 SC 1263 . (iv) Smt. Chandrakantaben J. Modi & Narendra Jayantilal Modi v. Vadilal Bapalal Modi & Ors., reported in AIR 1989 SC 1269 . 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the settled position of law as enumerated in above referred decisions, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in the present appeal. The appellants have failed to prove any illegality in the order dated 15.2.1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur as well as in the arbitration award dated 14.11.1996. Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******