IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1288 of 2010 In CWJC No. 14946 of 2009. ================================================ Union of India through Deputy Chief Engineer, Contruction/1/East Central Railway, P.S. & District – Samastipur ………. Appellant Versus 1. M/s Kamal Constructions through its partner Kamal Kant Singh, S/o Late Trivenit Singh having its registered office at Mehdauli, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Begusarai and 2. Yogendra Singh, S/o Late Triveni Singh, partner of M/s Kamal Constructions, Sri S.K. Nagar Baipas Chawk, Begusarai, P.S. Town, District – Begusarai ……….. Respondent ================================================ Appearance: For the appellant: Mr Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate. =============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 25.08.2010. Re. I.A. No. 7311 of 2010. Heard the learned Advocate. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is made by the appellant Union of India for condonation of delay of 28 days occurred in filing the above Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. LPA No. 1288 of 2010. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the Union of India (East Central Railway) 2 against the judgment and order dated 04.05.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 14946 of 2009. The matter arises from the arbitral award passed by the arbitral tribunal. The appellant East Central Railway has made an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1996’) before the Civil Court for setting aside the arbitral award. Although the application under Section 34 of the Act has been made beyond the period of limitation, the appellant expects that the award should not be executed against the appellant. Against the order of attachment issued by the executing court, the appellant preferred the above CWJC No. 14946 of 2009. The learned single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition. We are in agreement with the learned single Judge. Besides, the appellant has a complete remedy under the Act of 1996. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a relief in a matter arising under the Act of 1996 shall not lie. Therefore, also the petition deserved to be dismissed. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is dismissed in limine. Dilip ( R. M. Doshit, CJ) ( Jyoti Saran, J)