ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 20 November 2015, by which FAO No.4232 of 2013 filed by the appellant was dismissed and against an order dated 11 January 2016 dismissing the review filed by him. 3. Briefly stated, the dispute between the parties arises from an agreement dated 14 March 1995 for the repair of roads at Bhatinda Military Station. The contract was terminated on 8 July 1996 (with effect from 11 July 1996), but in pursuance of a representation submitted by the appellant, the order of termination was withdrawn and the contract was revived on 2 August 1996. However, the agreement was again terminated in October 1997. The dispute in the present case relates to the claim No.4 for the recovery of damages suffered allegedly due to the prolongation of the contract period. 4. In pursuance of an order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 by the High Court on 7 August 2003, an Arbitrator was appointed. This order was confirmed by the dismissal of Civil Appeal No.5193/2004 filed by the Union of India, on 16 December 2004. The Arbitrator declared an award on 7 September 2010, by which damages of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) were awarded to the appellant for the period from 25 March 1995 to 24 September 1995. However, the Arbitrator declined to grant relief for the period from 25 September 1995 to 20 October 1997 on the ground that there was no agreement for the extended period. 5. The appellant and the Union of India filed objections to the Award under Section 34. They were dismissed by the District Judge on 9 February 2013. Against this, both the Union of India and the appellant filed First Appeals. FAO No.4232/2013 filed by the appellant was dismissed on 20 November 2015 and the review was also dismissed. On the other hand, FAO No.665/2014 filed by the Union of India is still pending before the High Court and is now stated to be listed on 5 February 2019. 6. In our view, it is only appropriate and proper that since both the First Appeals arose out of the same arbitral Award and relate to the same contractual dispute, both be heard and disposed of together. 7. 6. In our view, it is only appropriate and proper that since both the First Appeals arose out of the same arbitral Award and relate to the same contractual dispute, both be heard and disposed of together. 7. Hence, for the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court on 20 November 2015 and 11 January 2016. We restore FAO No.4232/2013 to the file of the High Court for disposal along with FAO No.665/2014. 8. During the course of these proceedings, we found that the appellant who appeared in person was unable to effectively convey his grievance before the Court. Hence, we requested Mr. Yatindra Singh, learned Senior Counsel, to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. We record our appreciation for the assistance provided to the Court by him. We request the High Court, having regard to what we have stated above, to appoint an Amicus Curiae so that the perspective of the appellant can be effectively placed before the High Court. The First Appeal filed by the appellant shall be decided afresh. All the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. 9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of along with all pending applications. No costs.