Civil Revision No. 4854 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4854 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.07.2009 M/s Jai Bhole Shanker Rice Mills, Faridkot, and another ....Petitioners Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. C.S. Bakshi, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) CM No. 17756-CII of 2008 Allowed as prayed for. CR No. 4854 of 2008 This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, on an application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The dispute between the parties was referred for arbitration to Civil Revision No. 4854 of 2008 (O&M) -2- respondent No. 2. An award was passed on 22.6.2006. On expiry of the period prescribed to challenge the award, respondent No. 1 moved an application for execution of the award. On receipt of the notice of execution, the petitioners moved an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to challenge the award. It was averred in the application, that they came to know about the passing of the award on 22.6.2006 only about 10 days prior to the filing of the application when they received summons from the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot. The objections, therefore, were pleaded to be within limitation. Under Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, a statutory duty is imposed on the Arbitrator to supply copy of the award to both the parties and period of three months is given to the party to file objections under Section 34 from the date of receipt of copy of the award. The contention of the petitioners, therefore, was that he having come to know about the award only 10 days prior to the filing of the application, the objections were within limitation. The learned Additional District Judge framed the issues on the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation act, and recorded that no ground for condonation of delay is made out, and dismissed the application. Consequently, application moved under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was ordered to be dismissed, as time barred. There can hardly be any reason to interfere with the order passed, except that the application should have been dismissed as not Civil Revision No. 4854 of 2008 (O&M) -3- competent, as application under Section 5 to condone the delay is not competent. A petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was filed on the pleadings that it was filed within limitation, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Court to have adjudicated that application independently and decided it on merits, specially when there was no proof of service of award, by the Arbitrator as envisaged under Section 31(5) of the Act. For the reasons stated, this revision is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, to adjudicate on the application moved under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on merits, in accordance with law. However, keeping in view the fact that no evidence is required to be led on the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the learned Court should decide the application under Section 34 preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Revision allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 21, 2009 R.S.