Civil Revision No. 2611 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2611 of 2011 Date of Decision: 4.5.2011 *** Sukhchain Singh. .. Petitioner Vs. The Punjab State Cooperative, Supply and Marketing Federation (MARKFED) & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr.H.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 17.1.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar whereby on an application filed by the respondent-Punjab State Cooperative, Supply and Marketing Federation (for brevity, referred as MARKFED) to condone the delay occurred in filing the petition under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the award dated 25.3.2002, has been accepted and the period w.e.f. 8.6.2002 to 22.9.2004 during which the petition remained pending before the Court at Chandigarh, who for want of territorial jurisdiction was unable to decide the petition, has been excluded from computing the period of limitation to file the objection. Heard. The petitioner was one of the party to the award dated 25.3.2002. It is evident from the records that after passing of the said award, respondent MARKFED filed a petition for setting aside the same before the Court at Chandigarh, which for want of territorial jurisdiction returned the Civil Revision No. 2611 of 2011 2 petition vide order dated 22.9.2004. Accordingly on 9.12.2004 the objection petition was filed before the Court at Amritsar along with an application for condonation of delay occurred in filing the objections. It emerges out that though the application was contested tooth and nail and a specific issue regarding the bonafide of the respondent in filing the objection petition at Chandigarh in good faith was framed. On the strength of evidence adduced by the parties, the Court below concluded that MARKFED was pursuing the objection before the Court at Chandigarh in good faith and hence granted it the benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963. For arriving at the said conclusion, the Court observed that the award was passed at Chandigarh and the legal opinion was also given to file the objection petition at Chandigarh, which clearly shows the bonafide of the MARKFED. After excluding the said period, the Court below found that the objection petition is within limitation, as provided under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The revision petition, being without any merit, is dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 04, 2011 Jiten