N. N. Mithal, J. - (1.)AN arbitration award is under challenge in this appeal at the instance of the Union of India representing the Commander Works Engineer. A contract had been entered into between the parties for provision of essential accommodation (OTM) at Allahabad under Contract Agreement No. CENZ/ALD/30/1975-76. The respondent was obliged to execute the contract by 9-11-1977 but it was extended from time to time upto 21-5-1979. As the contractor is alleged to have committed breach by not completing the work within time certain disputes arose between the parties which were referred to arbitration in pursuance of an arbitration clause in that Contract Agreement. By his award dated 12-7-1984, the sole arbitrator gave an award in favour of the respondent. Objections were filed by the appellant on 11-9-1985 which have been rejected by the court below as being barred by time. On merits also, the court below has found against the appellant and it has been held that there was no mistake committed by the arbitrator. Accordingly the award has been made the rule of the court.
(2.)MANY pronged attack has been made to assail the order under appeal. It is alleged that the award is non-speaking and, therefore invalid; the objections were within time and has been wrongly rejected by the court below. The award itself was beyond 6 months time as agreed for giving the award ; that the District Judge had no power to award interest and that according to one of the terms of the contract, the Contractor was not entitled to claim any benefit on account of price escalation due to the extended period for completing the work.
So far as the validity of the award because of its non-speaking nature is concerned, the matter is now concluded by the Supreme Court in the recent past. Following the view taken by the Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors, (1989) 2 SCC 721 and Executive Engineer (Irrigation) Balimela v. Abhadutta Jena, (1988) 1 SCC 418, another Division Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. J. P. Lath, 1989 (3) Judgment Today 340, held that a non-speaking award is also valid and can not be assailed merely on the ground that reasons for the award have not been given. In a recent decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court the same view has been reiterated. In M/s. Sudarsan Trading Co. v. Government of Kerala, AIR 1989 SC 890, the Supreme Court refused to set aside the award if reasons for making the award were not given by the arbitrator. The court took the view that appraisement of evidence by the arbitrator is never a matter which the court questions and considers. If the parties have selected their own forum, the deciding forum must be conceded the power of appraisement of evidence. The arbitrator is the sole Judge of the quality as well as the quantity of evidence and it will not be for the court to take upon itself the task of being a Judge on the evidence before the Arbitrator. This aspect of the matter, therefore, need not detain us any longer.

(3.)THE second and the more important question raised in the appeal is about limitation. Before venturing to look into the legal aspect, some facts would be relevant. Reference to arbitration was made on 1-12-1980 and the award was made on 12-7-1984. According to the appellant, notice to the District Government Counsel (Civil) was given only on 13-8-1985 and the objections having been filed on 11-9-1985 the same were within limitation and, therefore, it is urged that the view of the trial court in this regard was wrong. THE respondent, on the other hand, urged that the award was filed by the Arbitrator through the C.W.E. himself and, therefore, C.W.E. was aware right from the very date of the filing of the award in court that the same had been filed and, therefore, the limitation will begin from that date. Alternatively it is urged that after the filing of the award, notice to District Government Counsel (Civil) was given on 13-8-1984 and the limitation will start running from that date.