1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI & THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM C.R.P.No.2873 OF 2009 ORDER:(per A.V. Sesha Sai, J) Heard Sri Aravala Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Challenge in the present Revision is the order, dated 08.02.2008, passed in I.A.No.638 of 2007 in A.O.P.No. of 2007. 3. Seeking to set aside the Arbitral Award, the petitioner herein filed the aforesaid A.O.P under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(for short ‘the Act’). Along with the said petition, the petitioner herein also filed I.A.No.638 of 2007 under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 242 days in filing the petition. The learned Principal District Judge, by way of the order impugned in the present Revision, dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground of maintainability. According to sub-Section (3) of Section 34 of the Act, the application for setting aside the Arbitration Award needs to be filed within a 2 period of three(3) months from the date on which the party making such application had received the Arbitral Award. The said proviso also stipulates that a further time of 30 days can be allowed by the Lower Court. In the instant case, admittedly, there was a delay of 242 days in filing the application under Section 34 of the Act. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Chief Engineer of BPDP/REO, Ranchi Vs. Scoot Wilson Kirpatrick India(P) LTD1. In the said Judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with the aspect of applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963, at Paragraph No.8, held as follows:- “8. The decision in Popular Construction case did not deal with specific issues in this case. In that decision it was held that in respect of “sufficient cause cases” the provisions of Section 34(3) of the Act which are special provisions relating to condonation of delay override the general provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,1963. The position was reiterated in the Western Builders Case and also in Fairgrowth Investments Ltd V.Custodian. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that Section 5 of the Limitation Act providing for condonation of delay is excluded by Section 34(3) of the Act. 1 (2006) 13 SCC 622 3 4. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgment, the order passed by the learned Judge, which is impugned in the present Revision, cannot be faulted and, accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case, shall stand closed. __________________ A.V. SESHA SAI, J _______________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J Date: 07.11.2023 TM 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI & THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM C.R.P. No.2873 OF 2009 (per A.V. Sesha Sai, J) Date:07.11.2023 TM