CR No.683 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR No.683 of 1995 Date of Decision: 7.1.2011 Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. .....Petitioner Vs. M/s Jindal Rice Mills, Khuddi Road, Barnala and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate and Mr.Divya Suri,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Soni, Advocate for respondent no.1. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner impugns an order dated 28.11.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge, Barnala, accepting the appeal filed by the respondent no.1, by setting aside the judgement and decree dated 25.1.1994, passed by the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Barnala. The petitioner appointed an Arbitrator to determine disputes with respondent no.1. The petitioner and respondent no.1 filed their respective claims. The Arbitrator pronounced an award in favour of the petitioner on 17.12.1987. The petitioner filed an application before the Sub Judge, Ist Class, Baranala, to direct the Arbitrator, to file the award in court and prayed that the award so filed may be made a rule of the court. Respondent no.1 filed a reply to this application titled as “Reply-cum- Objections” raising objections against the award. The Arbitrator filed the CR No.683 of 1995 2 award in the trial court on 15.4.1988. Respondent no.1 filed additional objections on 16.7.1988. The petitioner raised a plea that the objections should be rejected, as they are time barred. The trial court accepted this argument, dismissed the objections as barred by time but reduced the rate of interest. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.1 filed an appeal. Vide order dated 28.11.1994, the Additional District Judge, Barnala, accepted the appeal, set aside the judgement and decree passed by the trial court by holding that as respondent no.1 had already filed objections, while filing his reply to the application for directing the Arbitrator to file the award, the objections could not be dismissed as barred by time. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as objections have to be filed, after the Arbitrator presents his award before a court, objections filed before the filing of the award, cannot be considered. The additional objections were, admittedly, filed three months after the award and were, therefore, rightly rejected as barred by time in view of Article 119 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. It is further submitted that the first appellate court has committed an error of jurisdiction in holding that objections filed before the filing of the award can be treated as valid objections. Counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that as the impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law, the revision should be dismissed. It is further submitted that the trial court erroneously rejected objections, filed before presentation of the award and held that as additional objections were filed three months after the filing of the award, the objections are barred by time. It is further submitted that this hyper technical view adopted by the trial court was rightly rectified by the first CR No.683 of 1995 3 appellate court. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and find no reason to accept the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner. It is not denied and is in fact admitted that in reply to the application calling upon the Arbitrator to present the award, respondent no.1, raised objections to the award filed on 15.4.1988 and that he filed additional objections on 16.7.1988. The trial court, rejected both sets of objections on the ground that the first set of objections were filed before the presentation of award, whereas the second set of objections were filed beyond the period of limitation. The first appellate court after due consideration of these facts adopted a pragmatic approach by holding that objections, filed in the reply to the application to direct the Arbitrator to present the award, are to be treated as objections to the award. I find no reason to differ with the view adopted by the appellate court. The mere fact that additional objections were filed on 16.7.1988, does not render objections filed in the reply to the application, as barred by time. The impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law. The revision is dismissed with no order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the successor court of the Sub Judge, Ist class, Barnala, on 14.3.2011, who shall decide the matter, afresh, on the basis of objections already filed and the evidence already adduced within a period of 3 months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7.1.2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE