IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.2314 OF 2001 Between: - P.V.Raghavendra Rao …Appellant A n d State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Superintending Engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar Left Canal, Operation and Maintenance Circle, Tekulapalli, Khammam District. ….Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.2314 OF 2001 JUDGMENT:: (Per AGR, J) This appeal is filed by the Contractor against the decree and order dated 29-12-2000 of the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed in O.P.No.346 of 1989, whereby the OP filed by the Contractor under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the Award dated 09-05-1989 of the Arbitrator to the extent of claim Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 and to remand the award to the sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Court for fresh consideration of claims, was dismissed. 2. It is not disputed that after passing of the award by the Arbitrator, the petitioner instituted O.S.No.1184 of 1989 under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act to make the Award dated 09-05-1989 of the Arbitrator as a rule of the Court to the extent of Claim No.7 and to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- paid by the Contractor towards fees to the Arbitrator with interest at 24% p.a. Further, the Irrigation Department, Government of A.P (employer) filed O.P.No.526 of 1989 for setting aside the award dated 09-05-1989 of the Arbitrator and to remit the Award for re-consideration to the Arbitrator or Arbitrators to be appointed by the Court at the costs of the Contractor. 3. The learned trial Judge by the impugned common order dated 29-12-2000 dismissed O.P.Nos.526 of and 346 of 1989 filed by the Irrigation Department and Contractor respectively and decreed the suit O.S.No.1184 of 1989 filed by the appellant- Contractor. Feeling aggrieved for making the Award rule of the Court in O.S.No.1184 of 1989, the Government filed C.R.P.No.4115 of 2005. A Division Bench of this Court while dismissing the said revision held that the dispute is of trivial in nature and further held that the order shall not be treated as a precedent for the purpose of deciding any question of law involved. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the finding recorded in O.P.No.526 of 1989, on point Nos.1 and 2, had become final, as no appeal has been preferred against the same. The issues in the above O.P. and the issues in the present O.P are one and the same. Having regard to the fact that the finding recorded in O.P.No.526 of 1989 had become final, this C.M.A is also liable to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, this C.M.A is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Dated 11th March, 2010 Lrkm/Bss.