Civil Revision No.3102 of 2004(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.3102 of 2004(O&M) Decided on : December 15, 2009 Union of India etc. ... Petitioners VERSUS M/sGirdhari Lal ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.J.R.Mittal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Kashmir Singh and Mr.Lalit Sharma, Advocates for the respondent. A.N.JINDAL, J.- An agreement between the parties for construction of some accommodation in the year 1983-84 could not be completed within the time frame as mentioned in the agreement, giving rise to a dispute which was referred to the Arbitrator. The Award was published in this case on 12.1.1991, whereby, the respondent – Contractor firm (herein referred as `the respondent') filed an application under Sections 14, 17 and 29 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The respondent against filed the application on 18.11.1997, which was partly allowed by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 6.8.2002 and the award was made rule of the Court. Civil Revision No.3102 of 2004(O&M) [ 2 ] The appeal preferred by the petitioner – Union of India (herein referred as `the petitioner') was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda vide judgment dated 20.4.2004, while the cross-objection petition preferred by the respondent firm was allowed. Hence, the instant revision. Heard. The main stake of the arguments raised by Mr.S.K.Sharma, counsel for the Union of India – petitioner is that once the application for making the award as rule of the Court was dismissed in default and subsequent application moved for restoration having been withdrawn, the another application for making the award rule of the Court was barred by limitation. Having scrutinised the records, I do not find any merit in the submission so made, as the party, in whose favour the award is published, even if, does not ask the Court to make it a Rule of the Court and the opposite party files objections, which are ultimately dismissed, in such an event, there is no other option left, but the relief would automatically follow that the award is to be made the Rule of the Court. Moreover, in the application, it was clarified that when the notices of the application for restoration were served upon the other party, at that time, it had come to the notice that the award is lying in the Trial Court without any proceedings. In such circumstances, the limitation of 3o days was to start from the date of filing of the award in the Court and the notices are served by the Court upon the parties. Hence, the plea taken by the petitioner – Union of India fails. So far as the second contention of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to the award of the interest is concerned, the same has been Civil Revision No.3102 of 2004(O&M) [ 3 ] awarded by the Court in exercise of its discretion, which should not lightly be interfered with at the revisional stage. No illegality, much less any irregularity has been found in the impugned judgment. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. No order as to costs. December 15, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE