FAO No.379 of 2008 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.379 of 2008 Date of decision : 10.2.2010 Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. and another ..Appellants. Vs. M/s Punjab Rice Mills, Sardulgarh, District Mansa and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Ms.Deepali Puri, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Mukand Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of three appeals bearing FAO Nos.379, 381 and 382 of 2008 which have been preferred against order of learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh dated 3.11.2006, whereby application for restoration of Objection Petition filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short `the Act') has been dismissed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that against the award of the Arbitrator, the appellant filed an Objection Petition under Section 34 of the Act which was dismissed for non prosecution on 12.2.2001. An application for restoration was filed on 9.6.2001 alleging therein that the appellant came to know about the order of dismissal in default on 23.2.2001, certified copy was taken on 24.4.2001 and filed the appeal on FAO No.379 of 2008 -2- 9.6.2001. In reply, the application was contested by the respondents by taking preliminary objections of limitation and maintainability. The other contents of the application were also denied. Learned Court below framed issues on 20.9.2005 and after considering evidence led by the parties, held that the application is barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellant came to know about the order of dismissal in default on 23.2.2001 and immediately, the appellants started the process of taking copy for filing the appeal. In that process, two letters were also written to their counsel because of whose non appearance, the Objections were dismissed for non- prosecution, for the purpose of getting his affidavit but he did not offer to file an affidavit in support of the application filed by the appellants. It is also submitted that said Advocate has already been de-penaled by the appellant Corporation. It is, however, admitted that no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed when the application for restoration was filed. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has submitted that Article 122 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that in order to restore a suit or appeal or an application, limitation is 30 days from the date of dismissal. In the present case, it is submitted that even if limitation is to be counted from 1.5.2001, the application should have been filed on 1.6.2001 but still it has been filed beyond limitation and despite the objection has been taken in reply, no application for condonation of delay was filed. It is further submitted that the present appeal was also filed with an application for condonation of delay in re-filing and for condonation of delay in filing FAO No.379 of 2008 -3- of the appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. No doubt, the present appeals have been filed by the appellants with an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short `CPC') for condonation of delay in re-filing of the appeal and for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal but both the applications have been allowed by this Court by passing a separate order of even date. However, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed solely on the ground that the application for restoration was barred by limitation before the Court below and there was no application filed by the appellants for condonation of delay. Thus, I do not find any error in the order passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh dated 3.11.2006 in dismissing the application. Hence, all the three appeals are also hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 10.2.2010 JUDGE Meenu