FAO No. 5815 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 5815 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 22.12.2009 State of Haryana ... Appellant vs Ravinder Kumar and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. D. D. Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned court below whereby the objections filed by the appellant against the award of the arbitrator were dismissed. Briefly the facts are that respondent no. 1 (hereinafter to be referred as “the contractor”) was awarded the work of construction of S/S Tank 330'x330'x8' pipeline at head works and all other work contingent thereto for augmentation water supply scheme, Beri, District Jhajjar. The dispute arose on account of extra work got done from the contractor which was not part of the contract. It has come on record that during the course of excavation, when it reached at 2' below the ground level, wet earth started. The contractor was directed to go ahead with the excavation of the wet earth and assured the payment thereof. When the wet excavation reached at 7' below the ground level, there was huge water and excavation in water was not possible unless dewatering was done. On the assurance of the appellant, the contractor did dewatering at the site and then continued with the work. The claim was made with regard to excavation of wet earth and also dewatering. The learned Arbitrator accepted the plea raised by the contractor and determined a sum of Rs. 1,67,349/- on account of extra job done by the contractor. It is against that award that the appellant filed objections before the learned court below and the same were dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is a case where the award of the Arbitrator was beyond the terms of the contract and the same deserves to be set aside as the Arbitrator could not proceed beyond the terms of the contract. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. FAO No. 5815 of 2009 -2- In the procedure adopted by the Arbitrator, no fault as such has been pointed out. After appreciating the evidence produced on record by the parties, the Arbitrator came to the conclusion that extra work was got done from the contractor on the assurance given by the appellant that he will be paid money for the same as otherwise the execution of the work would have been delayed. It was only on account of that extra work done by the contractor, the execution of which is not in dispute that the Arbitrator has granted the amount to the contractor. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the impugned order passed by the learned court below does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 22.12.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge