JUDGMENT : MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 30th May, 2008, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Arbitration Case No. 66 of 2002, titled the Executive Engineer vs. Jagdish Chand Gupta, whereby the award made by the Arbitrator, came to be set aside, on the ground of limitation and jurisdiction, (for short, the impugned judgment). 2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/claimant filed the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgment. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 24th September, 2013, referred the matter to the Arbitrator for determining issue No. 4(A) i.e. whether the reference to the Arbitrator was beyond time and as such, the award is bad? The Arbitrator returned the findings and held that the claim was not barred by limitation. The respondent/State has not questioned the said findings of the Arbitrator, therefore, the same have attained finality. 4. In view of the above, the findings returned by the learned Single Judge on issue No. 4(A) needs to be set aside. Ordered accordingly. 5. Issue No. 4(B) framed by the learned Single Judge is – Whether the appointment of second Arbitrator was not in accordance with law, if so its effect? 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant argued that the learned Single Judge has fallen in error in deciding issue No. 4(B) in the affirmative for the reason that the respondent/State had participated in the proceedings before the Arbitrator and also not raised the said issue in the memo of application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short, the Act). 7. From the facts of the case, it transpires that the Arbitrator, for the first time, was appointed in the year 1995, who closed the proceedings without making the award vide order dated 8th July, 1997, whereafter the proceedings were revived on the order made by the Chief Engineer and second Arbitrator was appointed. 8. We are unable to countenance how the first Arbitrator closed the proceedings without making the award. Be that as it may. Respondent/State has also not questioned the appointment of the second Arbitrator, rather joined the proceedings before the second Arbitrator, which proceedings resulted into making of the award. 8. We are unable to countenance how the first Arbitrator closed the proceedings without making the award. Be that as it may. Respondent/State has also not questioned the appointment of the second Arbitrator, rather joined the proceedings before the second Arbitrator, which proceedings resulted into making of the award. The respondent/State questioned the said award on the grounds taken in the memo of the application filed under Section 34 of the Act. However, no such ground has been taken by the respondent/ State in the said application. 9. From the above, it is clear that the respondent/State is caught by its own conduct, law of omission and waiver. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge on Issue No. 4(B) are also liable to be set aside and the same are set aside accordingly. 10. The learned Single Judge, after determining issues No. 4(A) and 4(B), has not returned findings on issues No. 1 to 4, as having become redundant. 11. In the given circumstances, the appeal is allowed, the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for decision on issues No. 1 to 4 as early as possible, preferably within 8 weeks. Parties through their counsel are directed to cause appearance before the learned Single Judge having the Roster on 1st December, 2015. 12. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending CMP, if any.