JUDGMENT

Ruma Pal, J.-Leave granted.

2. The litigants, in this case, have traversed unknown procedural paths crossing legal barriers to present us with a case which has no simple solution.

3. The cause for complaint before us is an order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure condoning the delay in filing an application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and remanding the matter to the Trial Court for a decision on merits. According to the petitioners the High Court had wrongly interfered with the order dated 28th April, 1999 by which the Principal Senior Civil Judge Kakinada had dismissed the respondent s application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on the ground that the cause shown for the delay was insufficiently explained.

4. Had the issue been so straightforward, unquestionably the High Courts order would have had to be set aside, because it had re-appraised the cause shown by the respondent and condoned the delay under Section 5 of the 1963 Act. There is ample authority to hold that this could not be done under Section 115 of the Code [See : D.L.F. Housing & Construction Company Private Ltd., New Delhi v