CM No.23090-CII-2009 and -1- FAO No.4781 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CM No.23090-CII-2009 and FAO No.4781 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 06.08.2010 **** M/s Guru Rice Mills Morinda Road Kurali, District Ropar and another . . . . Appellants VS. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation, SCO No.353-55, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.C.S. Bakshi, Advocate for the respondents. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) CM No.23090-CII-2009 and FAO No.4781 of 2009 (O&M) This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 1959 days in filing the appeal. Notice in the application was issued to which reply has been filed. Admittedly, the ex parte award was passed by the Arbitrator on 30.8.1999 against which applicants/appellants had filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) on 30.11.1999 which was dismissed on 21.12.2002. However, the applicants/appellants had filed a Civil Revision No.5277 of 2005 in CM No.23090-CII-2009 and -1- FAO No.4781 of 2009 (O&M) the year 2005 which was withdrawn on 15.5.2008. Certified copy of the impugned award was applied on 26.5.2008 and without waiting for the certified copy of the order, present appeal was filed in this Court on 27.5.2008. It is submitted that in this process a delay of 1959 days had occurred which was neither intentional nor deliberate. Learned counsel for the non-applicants/respondents has submitted that the learned counsel for the applicants/appellants has explained his presence in the Court since 2005 but nothing has been explained about his absence from the Court from 31.12.2002 to 2005. It is submitted that limitation to file appeal is 90 days whereas the revision by itself was filed after a period of about three years. Since, there is no explanation about the period of three years on the part of the applicants/appellants, who are rice millers, therefore, the story set up by the appellants cannot be believed to constitute a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Hence the present application is dismissed. Consequently, the present appeal is also dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 06.08.2010 JUDGE Vivek