FAO NMo.2314 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CM No.11302-CII-2009 and FAO No.2314 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 05.05.2010 **** M/s Ujagar Mal Sat Pal Rice Mill . . . . Appellant VS. The Punjab State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for Mr.A.S. Kalra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.C.S. Bakshi, Advocate for the respondents. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 907 days in filing the appeal. Notice in the application was issued to which reply has been filed. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Arbitral Award was passed on 20.6.2002, which was challenged both by the applicant as well as the respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’). The applicant had filed objections before District Judge, Jalandhar whereas respondents had filed objections before District Judge, Chandigarh. The objections filed by the applicant before the District Judge, Jalandhar were dismissed on 23.8.2005 whereas objections filed by the respondents before District FAO NMo.2314 of 2009 - 2 - Judge, Chandigarh were dismissed on 16.11.2006. The only reason assigned for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay is that after the dismissal of the objections on 23.8.2005, counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant failed to inform the applicant about the said decision. It is submitted that the applicant came to know about the decision dated 23.8.2005 after receiving a notice in FAO No.3323 of 2007, which was filed by the respondents after dismissal of their objections by the District Judge, Chandigarh on 16.11.2006. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the applicant concocted a story for seeking condonation of delay as it has no relation with the filing of the FAO No.3323 of 2007. It is submitted that even the name of that counsel who had appeared on behalf of the applicant in Jalandhar is not mentioned in the application. It is further submitted that the applicant is not illiterate who could not pursue its litigation pending before the Jalandhar Court especially when it itself is placed at Jalandhar much less at Nakodar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the reason assigned in the application is not sufficient for the purpose of granting indulgence to the applicant for condonation of delay, which is of almost three years. In my view, the reasoning adopted is concocted, which does not inspire any confidence, hence, the application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 05.05.2010 JUDGE Vivek