Judgment A. Selvam, J. 1. These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the common order passed in I.A.Nos.438 of 1996 and 127 of 2000 in Original Suit No.1096 of 1993 by the Principal Sub Court, Trichirapalli. 2. The appellant in CMA No.1553 of 2002 as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.1096 of 1993 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Trichirapalli praying to pass a money decree, wherein the respondents herein have been shown as defendants. During pendency of Original Suit No.1096 of 1993, an application in I.A.No.691 of 1993 has been filed for appointing an arbitrator and accordingly an arbitrator has been appointed. After giving sufficient opportunity, the arbitrator has passed the award dated 28.06.1995. The plaintiff in Original Suit No.1096 of 1993 has filed an application in I.A.No.438 of 1996 praying to pass Judgment and decree in pursuance of arbitral award dated 28.06.1995. Likewise, the third defendant viz., Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board by its Managing Director has filed I.A.No.127 of 2000 praying to declare that the arbitral award dated 28.06.1995 is null and void. 3. The principal Sub Court, Tiruchirapalli after considering the averments made in both petitions and also arbitral award, has allowed the petition filed in I.A.No.438 of 1996 in part to the tune of Rs.13,64,745/- and to that extent a decree has been passed in Original Suit No.1096 of 1993 and the petition filed in I.A.No.127 of 2000 has been dismissed. Against the disallowed portion, CMA No.1553 of 2002 has been filed and the respondents in I.A.No.438 of 1996 have filed CMA No.266 of 2003 in respect of the decree passed by the Court below and further the petitioner in I.A.No.127 of 2000 has filed CMA No.267 of 2003. 4. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, common Judgment is pronounced. 5. In CMA Nos.266 and 267 of 2003, the following common substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration: (i) Is the order of reference to arbitration without the concurrence in writing given by the appellant made by the lower Court valid? (ii) When reference to arbitration is vitiated by illegalities at its very inception, can the award based on such an illegal reference be enforced at all? (ii) When reference to arbitration is vitiated by illegalities at its very inception, can the award based on such an illegal reference be enforced at all? (iii) When a reference to arbitration under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 can be made only with respect to the matters in the suit is the award made on matters outside the suit valid and enforceable and is it not liable to be set aside in toto? (iv) Is not the order of the lower court holding that the suit must be deemed to have been filed against the Board, represented by the Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer liable to be set aside since it is contrary to the order of this Honourable Court made in the C.R.P? (v) Is the award directed against the Engineering Director of the Board who was not a party to the suit or the order of reference, valid and enforceable? (vi) Are not the inconsistent findings of the lower Court that the Board was/was not the contracting party and the final order made on the inconsistent finding liable to be set aside? (vii) Is not the award vitiated by the minconducting of the proceeding and by illegal and invalid reference and hence liable to be set aside in toto? (viii) Whether the order of the lower Court made in I.A.No.438 of 96 (filed by the respondent) under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 long after the period of limitation has expired is maintainable in law and whether the order of modification of the award made by Court on such application valid? (ix) Whether the order of the lower Court made in I.A.No.436 of 96, without considering the legal objections raised by the appellant regarding the validity of the order of reference and award in accordance with law and the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court is sustainable? (x) Whether the order of the lower Court is vitiated by the reason of the non-application of mind to the legal contentions raised by the appellant regarding the validity of the reference to arbitration, validity of the arbitration proceedings and the validity of the award? (xi) Whether the lower Court is right in granting a decree for part of the award against the appellant Board who was not a party either to the reference or to the arbitration proceedings? 6. (xi) Whether the lower Court is right in granting a decree for part of the award against the appellant Board who was not a party either to the reference or to the arbitration proceedings? 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CMA No.1553 of 2002 has contended that on the basis of the order passed in I.A.No.691 of 1993 in Original Suit No.1096 of 1993, an arbitrator has been appointed and he conducted due enquiry and after considering the rival submissions made on either side has passed the award to the tune of Rs.66,75,328/- and in order to pass Judgment and decree in pursuance of arbitral award, I.A.No.438 of 1996 has been filed on the file of the Court below. But the Court below without assigning proper reasons has rejected various amounts given by arbitrator under various heads and therefore, the Judgment and decree passed by the Court below in Original Suit No.1096 of 1993 are liable to be modified. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also equally contended that even institution of suit has not been properly done and further the sole arbitrator has done so many mistakes in passing award and no sufficient opportunity has been given to the respondents. Under the said circumstances, for the purpose of declaring the arbitral award as null and void, I.A.No.127 of 2000 has been filed and the Court below without assigning proper reasons has erroneously dismissed the same and further, the Court below without any basis has partly allowed I.A.No.438 of 1996. Under the said circumstances, I.A.No.438 of 1996 is liable to be dismissed in toto and I.A.No.127 of 1999 is liable to be allowed. 8. It is an admitted fact that the appellant in CMA No.1553 of 2002 as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.1096 of 1993. It is also equally an admitted fact that as per order passed in I.A.No.691 of 1993, an arbitrator has been appointed and he passed the arbitral award in question on 28.06.1995. 9. In fact, this Court has perused the entire arbitral award dated 28.06.1995, wherein it has been clearly stated that sufficient opportunities have been given to both parties. 10. The main contention put forth on the side of the petitioner in I.A.No.127 of 1999 is that the third defendant has not been properly arrayed in Original Suit No.1096 of 1993. 9. In fact, this Court has perused the entire arbitral award dated 28.06.1995, wherein it has been clearly stated that sufficient opportunities have been given to both parties. 10. The main contention put forth on the side of the petitioner in I.A.No.127 of 1999 is that the third defendant has not been properly arrayed in Original Suit No.1096 of 1993. If that be the case, necessary objection would have been raised even in Original Suit No.1096 of 1993. As narrated earlier, in Original Suit No.1096 of 1993 I.A.No.691 of 2003 has been filed for appointing an arbitrator and accordingly and arbitrator has been appointed. Since the objection raised in I.A.No.127 of 2000 has not been raised and subsequently an arbitrator has been appointed and the same has not been challenged on the side of the petitioner in I.A.No.127 of 2000, the main contention put forth on the side of the petitioner in I.A.No.127 of 2000 cannot be entertained. 11. It has already been pointed out that the arbitrator has given sufficient opportunities to both parties to put forth their contentions and after following due procedure, has passed arbitral award dated 28.06.1995 to the tune of Rs.66,75,328/- Considering the fact that the arbitrator has given sufficient opportunities to both parties and passed arbitral award dated 28.06.1995, it is highly impossible on the part of the Court to declare that the arbitral award in question is null and void. The Court below after considering all the contentions raised in I.A.No.127 of 2000 has rightly dismissed the same. 12. The main contention put forth on the side of the appellant in CMA No.1553 of 2002 and the petitioner in I.A.No.438 of 1996 is that the Court below without assigning proper reasons has disallowed various amounts given by the arbitrator in various heads. 13. It is an admitted fact that arbitral award has been passed to the tune of Rs.66,75,328/-. The Court below after considering each and every head has disallowed arbitral award to the tune of Rs.53,10,583/-. 14. In the arbitral award, in respect of first head, the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- The first head is in respect of charges towards clearing of jungle and dismantling of existing buildings. The Court below has rejected the same on the ground that there is no sufficient record. But, however, the Court below has awarded Rs.10,000/-. 14. In the arbitral award, in respect of first head, the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- The first head is in respect of charges towards clearing of jungle and dismantling of existing buildings. The Court below has rejected the same on the ground that there is no sufficient record. But, however, the Court below has awarded Rs.10,000/-. Likewise, with regard to heads 2 to 4, the Court below has rejected the same since the amounts given by arbitrator are baseless. Since the Court below has assigned specific reasons for disallowing the aforesaid claims, this Court cannot make any interference and further the Court below after considering the amount fixed under each and every head by the arbitrator, has rightly disallowed the amount of Rs.53,10,583/- and allowed the amount of Rs.13,64,745/-. Since with regard to aforesaid claims acceptable/trustworthy evidence is not available on the side of the petitioner in I.A.No.438 of 1996, the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perfectly correct and the same cannot be interfered with and the common substantial questions of law raised in CMA Nos.266 and 267 of 2003 are not having substance at all. 15. In fine, all the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are liable to be dismissed and accordingly are dismissed without cost. The common order passed in I.A.Nos.438 of 1996 and 127 of 2000 in Original Suit No.1096 of 1993 by the Principal Sub Court, Trichirapalli is confirmed.