CR No. 4020 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 4020 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 4.08.2009 M/s Jain Rice & General Mills ...Petitioner Vs. Sub Divisional Officer (Operation) & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.7.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (senior Division), Panipat, vide which the petition filed by the petitioner to challenge the award dated 29.5.1997 passed by the Arbitrator was ordered to be dismissed. Appeal filed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Panipat. The petitioner is a consumer under the Haryana State CR No. 4020 of 2006 2 Electricity Board and has been provided Account No.A 5-1 on its premises at Israna. Bill of Rs.2,71,948/- was raised. Because of non-payment of bill petitioner was threatened with disconnection. Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction wherein objection to jurisdiction of civil court was raised. The matter was referred to the arbitration of the Chief Engineer, Arbitration, Vidut Nagar, Haryana State Electricity Board, Hisar. Award was passed on 29.5.1997. It was ordered that 50 per cent of the amount shall be paid. Award passed was challenged by the petitioner. Learned trial court dismissed the objection petition. It is not disclosed how the objection under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short the Act) were filed instead of one under section 30 read with section 33 of the Act. The petitioner failed to lead any evidence in support of the objections. The learned trial court was pleased to dismiss the petition for want of evidence. Plea of the petitioner that the award was passed beyond period of 4 months was rejected as it was proved that the parties continued to participate in the proceedings after the expiry of period of four months. The findings of the learned courts below, that mere participation was sufficient to hold that the time stood extended cannot be sustained in law. It is settled law that in the given facts and circumstances of the case that the court can extend time even after passing of an award. Once the petitioner had chosen not to lead any evidence in support of his objections, and also keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner continued to participate in the proceedings till passing of the award, the time for making CR No. 4020 of 2006 3 the award stands extended. So far as other grounds are concerned as already observed no evidence was led, therefore, the award was rightly upheld. This revision petition is also accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation act for condoning the delay. Ground taken for condonation of delay is that the petitioner has no knowledge about the technicality of law and therefore, the delay be condoned. This plea prima facie cannot be accepted as the petitioner was represented by counsel, therefore, had expert legal advice at his disposal. Plea raised does not constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 102 days. There is, thus, no merit in the application for condonation of delay which is ordered to be dismissed. The revision petition is also devoid of merit as well as barred by limitation. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed on merit as well as on the ground of limitation. (Vinod K.Sharma) 4.08.2009 Judge rp