CR No.4887 of 2006 - 1 - In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 13.09.2010 Executive Engineer, HUDA, Elect. Division Hisar …. Petitioner Versus M/s Siya Ram Engineers through its Managing Partner And another. …. Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: None for the parties. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) This revision is directed against the orders dated 12.06.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned District Judge, Hisar, rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and consequently the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the Arbitral award. None is present on behalf of the parties. I have perused the impugned orders. A dispute between the parties came to be referred to Arbitral Tribunal. The Tribunal passed the award dated 19.01.2005 directing the refund of the earnest money in favour of respondent No.1-Contractor. The CR No.4887 of 2006 - 2 - award came to be challenged in the Arbitration proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in the Court of learned District Judge, Hisar. Since application under Section 34 of the Act aforesaid was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the Act, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was also filed. Learned District Judge vide his order dated 12.06.2006 passed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, rejected the application holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The learned District Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. M/s Popular Construction Co., 2000 (3) Indian Civil Cases, 597. After rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the learned District Judge dismissed the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, provides for filing of an application for setting aside the arbitral award before a Court. Three months period is provided for making such an application. Proviso to sub Section (3) of Section 34 of the Act further empowers the Court to extend the period of limitation by another 30 days if the Court is satisfied CR No.4887 of 2006 - 3 - that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application. The language used under Section 34 (3) of the Act lays down that the limitation cannot be condoned beyond four months. There is a complete embargo for extending period of limitation after four months. This issue has been concluded by the judgment of the Apex Court referred to here-in-above. In view of the above legal position, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. No merit. Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 13.09.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE