IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.369 of 1996 Date of decision : March 17, 2008 Mohinder Singh Rathore …Appellant Versus. State of H.P. …Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge . The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting ? No For the Appellant: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent: M/s. R.M.Bisht & Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate Generals. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.S. No.184 of 1994 decided on 22.8.1996 whereby he has dismissed the objections registered as OMP No.324 of 1995 filed against the award of the Arbitrator. Briefly stated, the facts are that the objector Mohinder Singh has purchased lot No.8/75-76 of Rohru Forest Division in an auction held on 28.1.1975. According to the State the Objector did not complete the work of felling in time and in fact indulged in illicit felling after the expiry of extended period of contract. Since disputes had arisen between the parties, same were referred to arbitration. An award was passed by Sh.Mohinder Lal the then Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. This award was set-aside on the objections filed by the State. The matter was remanded. In the meantime 2 Sh.P.C.Kapoor, took over as Deputy Commissioner, Shimla and he passed a fresh award. Objections against this award were filed by the present objector. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Suit No.84 of 1991 upheld the award of the Arbitrator except on one point. He came to the conclusion that the value of 236 maple trees illicitly felled had not been taken into consideration by the Arbitrator while passing the award. Award on all other counts was upheld and objections were rejected. It was on this short ground that the award was remitted to the Arbitrator to account for the money realized by the State on account of sale of timber from these 236 maple trees. Thereafter, an award was passed by Sh.V.C.Pharka, Deputy Commissioner, Shimla who has adjusted the amount received by the State on account of sale of maple trees after deducting the amount and passed the impugned award. Objections were filed before the learned Single Judge who rejected the same. Hence, the present appeal. We have heard Sh.Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sh.R.M.Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. Shri Ramakant Sharma has strenuously contended that the award is illegal. We cannot permit him to raise any other objections to the award except on the point of the value of the 236 maple trees. We cannot entertain any other objection to the award since previously the learned Single Judge in Civil Suit No.84 of 1991 upheld the award on all other counts and the award was only remitted on one issue and not set-aside. On the issue of the value of 236 trees nothing much has been stated before us. On perusal of the award and the order of the learned Single Judge we find that the learned Arbitrator has on the basis of evidence led before him accounted for the value of 236 maple trees. This is purely a finding of fact calling 3 for no interference in arbitration proceedings. The learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the objections. We find no merit in the appeal which is rejected. ( Deepak Gupta ),J. March 17, 2008. ( Rajiv Sharma ), J. PV