THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.3430 OF 2009 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.04.2009 passed by the court of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in I.A.No.3755/2007 in AS(SR).NO.10137/2007 in refusing to condone the delay of 108 days in the filing the appeal, the present revision is filed by the appellants. 3. The petitioners are the arbitrators and they passed the award on 29.11.1995 and for making the said award as rule of the court, they filed O.S.No.124/1999 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The said suit was dismissed on 7.4.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the arbitrators filed appeal in AS(SR).NO.10137/2007 and as there was delay on 108 days in filing the appeal, they filed the present I.A. seeking condonation of delay. Their case is that the certified copy was obtained on 15.6.2007 and the appeal ought to have been filed by 15.7.2007, but due to confusion as to which court the appeal lies i.e., either to lower appellate court or to the High Court, the delay occurred in filing the appeal and, therefore, they sought to condone the delay. 4. The 5th respondent filed counter and contended inter alia that the arbitrators as soon as they pass the award becomes functus officio and they are not concerned with the result and therefore the appeal is not maintainable and when the appeal itself is not maintainable the question of condonation of delay does not arise. 5. The court below accepting the ground raised by the 5th respondent held that the petitioners have become functus officio after passing of the award and they have no locus standi to file the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and, therefore, they have not made out their case for condoning the delay of 108 days in filing the appeal and accordingly dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 6. It is to be noticed that in a petition seeking to condone the delay, the courts are excepted to deal with the grounds raised in the said petition and if the petitioner is able to make out ‘sufficient cause’ for condoning the delay, then the delay needs to be condoned or else the petition is liable to be dismissed and the merits of the appeal cannot be gone into while rejecting the petition for condoning the delay. The Apex Court in the decision reported in STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. v. ARJUN PRASAD RAJAK[1] held as under: “4. We have carefully perused the order passed by the High Court and the explanation offered by the appellants in the affidavit filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal belatedly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion the High Court should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and should have decided the appeal on merits. Furthermore, this Court has consistently held, that, if for the reason, the appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay, the court need not express its opinion on the merits of the appeal. In the instant case, the High Court while declining to entertain the appeal on the ground of delay, has also made passing observation on the merits of the appeal, which, in our opinion, ought not to have been done by the High Court.” 7. From a perusal of the impugned order, the court below held that the arbitrators becomes functus offico as soon as they pass the award and that they have no locus standi to file the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. This finding at the stage of petition filed for condoning the delay is uncalled for. However, the legality or otherwise of the same can be considered provided the appeal is on file. But in the present case, the reasons for condoning the delay were not all considered and on the ground of maintainability of appeal, the petition for condonation of delay is dismissed. In my considered view, the impugned order of the court below needs to be set aside and the matter to be remitted back for fresh disposal. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the order as under: “The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for disposal of I.A.No.3755/2007 in AS (SR).No.10137/2007 afresh.” 9. The revision is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS ------------------------ 05—12—2009 [1] 2009(2) CCC 171 (SC)