ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The Appellant is before this Court assailing the Order dated 22.10.2018, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur. By the said Order, the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has set aside the Order dated 18.1.2018, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’, Bhopal in R.P. No. 106/2015, allowing the application filed by the appellant under Order 6 rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’), seeking to amend the claim petition and include the additional amount of Rs. 1,67,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Seven Thousand Only), which was deposited as an FDR and has been invoked by the respondents herein, which with interest and the other amount demanded through letter dated 1.1.2016 would be payable by the respondent. 3. The Tribunal, having taken note that the claim made by the appellant had arisen subsequent to the dispute being referred to arbitration, has allowed the application. 4. The High Court, while reversing the Order has essentially gone into the aspect of the power of the Tribunal to allow such application, keeping in view the inherent power, that is contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure, vis-a-vis, section 17A of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam Act, 1983 (in short ‘the Act’). 5. Though, detailed consideration has been made by the High Court, we do not depose to advert to the correctness or otherwise of the conclusion reached on the inherent powers since, according to us, the same did not arise as an aspect for consideration in the petition keeping in view the circumstance under which the amendment was sought. 6. Therefore, the sole question for consideration herein, is as to whether the claim, which was made by the appellant to be incorporated by way of an amendment, had arisen prior to the filing of the claim petition or subsequent thereto. 7. In that regard, what is necessary to be taken note is the provision, as contained in section 7 A of the Act, which reads as under : Reference Petition-- (1) Every reference petition shall include whole of the claim which the party is entitled to make in respect of the works contract till the filing of the reference petition but no claims arising out of any other works contract shall be joined in such a reference petition. (2) Where a party omits to refer or intentionally relinquishes any claim or any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards be entitled to refer in respect of such claim or portion of claim so omitted or relinquished. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) disputes relating to works contract which may arise after filing of the reference petition may be entertained as and when they arise, subject to such condition as may be prescribed. 8. In light of the same and in view of Sub section (3) to section 7(A) stating that the claim could be made, provided the claim has arisen subsequent to the filing of the claim petition, the fact situation need reference. 9. To consider this aspect of the matter, the perusal of the petition papers would indicate that the arbitration claim was filed on 24.7.2015. The amendment application was filed on 21.10.2016. The reason indicated for seeking incorporation of the additional claim is that the appellant addressed a letter on 1.1.2016 on knowing of the encashment of the FDR, which was provided as an earnest money and the other claim, after learning of the same when the respondent submitted the written statement before the Tribunal and contended to that effect. If that be the position, the fact that the FDR had been encashed and regarding the other amended claim, it was not within the knowledge of the appellant, as on 24.7.2015. 10. Therefore, in the present case, the appellant had learnt about the additional claim, that was required to be made, only when written statement was filed and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appellant to amend the claim petition. 11. In that view, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal being justified in allowing the appellant to amend the claim petition, the High Court had erred in setting aside the Order. 12. Accordingly, the Order dated 22.10.2018, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is set aside. 13. The appeals are allowed in the afore-stated terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.