IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 4223 of 2011(O) ------------------------- LAC.84/2006 of DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ M.P.JOHNY, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.M.K.POULOSE, MADAPPILLY HOUSE, KODAKARA (P.O.), TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE ARBITRATOR & DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, TRICHUR- 680003. 2. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CHEMBUKKAVU, TRICHUR-680 020. R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.I.DAVIS, GOVT. PLEADER THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2011 ALONG WITH OP(C) NO: 4224/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JV OPC NO: 4223/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE UN-NUMBERED OP (ARBITRATION) FILED BEFORE DISTRICT COURT, TRICHUR DATED 17.10.2011 CHALLENGING THE AWARD NO.60/2010 IN LAC NO.84/2006 DATED 21.08.2010 PASSED BY THE ARBITRATOR & DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR. P2: COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT MADE BY THE DISTRICT COURT, TRICHUR IN UN- NUMBERED OP (ARBITRATION) DATED 22.10.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE JV THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) Nos.4223 & 4224 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T These Original Petitions are filed by petitioners who, in challenge of Award Nos.60 and 59 of 2010 filed petitions before learned District Judge, Thrissur under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) requesting to set aside the Awards on various grounds set forth in Ext.P1, petitions. It would appear that the office of learned District Judge put up notes that the Awards are dated 21.08.2010, the due date to submit applications to set aside the awards is over and hence petitions may be returned. Learned District Judge made an order “Return”. The said orders as revealed from Ext.P2 are under challenge. 2. It is contended by learned counsel that the Awards are dated 21.08.2010 but the same were received by petitioners on 14.09.2011 and Ext.P1, petitions were presented before learned District Judge on 21.10.2011. It is contended by learned counsel that as per sub-sec.(3) of Sec.34 of the Act, application to O.P(C) Nos.4223 & 4224 of 2011 -: 2 :- set aside the Award could be filed within three months from the date on which party making the application receives the award and that in view of sub-sec.(3) of Sec.34 of the Act it is within the power of the court to condone the delay if the application is preferred beyond the period of 30 days provided the party is able to show sufficient cause. According to the learned counsel since copy of Awards were received by petitioners only on 14.09.2011, they have three months' time from 14.09.2011 to file petitions, whereas, petitions are filed on 21.10.2011 and hence there is no delay. 3. It is not clear whether petitioners had produced any document before learned District Judge along with Ext.P1 to show that copy of Awards were received only on 14.09.2011. In view of sub-sec.(3) of Sec.34 of the Act the period of three months must commence from the date on which a copy of the Award is received by the party concerned. It is seen that Ext.P2, orders are passed without hearing petitioners. Learned District Judge ought to have given petitioners opportunity to address arguments and show that petitions are not time barred, before the impugned orders were passed. If necessary, learned District Judge could also give notice to the respondents before deciding the question O.P(C) Nos.4223 & 4224 of 2011 -: 3 :- of limitation. In that view of the matter, Ext.P2, orders in these proceedings are liable to be set aside. But I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the question whether Ext.P1, petitions are presented within the prescribed time or not. Original Petitions are allowed. Exhibit P2, orders are set aside. Learned District Judge is directed to decide the question of limitation after hearing petitioners and after giving opportunity to the petitioners to show that petitions are filed within the prescribed time. I make it clear that if necessary learned District Judge may hear the respondents also before deciding the question of limitation. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv