JUDGMENT

G. N. RAY, J.:—This appeal arises out of a judgment dated 30th June, 1976 passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, in Misc. Appeal No. 194 of 1967* arising out of the decision of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna in Misc. Case No. 38 of 1961 since renumbered as Misc. Case 14 of 1962. The said Misc. Case arises out of an application made by the appellant Binod Bihari Singh for making an award in an arbitration proceeding, a Rule of Court after directing the arbitrator to file the award. The relevant facts relating to the appeal may be indicated as follows:

# Reported in 1977 Pat LJR (HC) 309

2. A contract was entered between the appellant Shri Binod Bihari Singh and the President of India on 10th December, 1957 for loading, unloading and handling of goods at Gaya Goods Shed of the Eastern Railway for the period of 3 years. Such contract however was terminated by the Railway Administration before the completion of the period of contract namely with effect from 2nd August, 1960. In terms of arbitration clause in the agreement for reference of the dispute arising out of the contract, an arbitrator was initially appointed by the General Manager, Eastern Railway. There was dispute about such appointment. Ultimately, the High Court of Patna, appointed Shri J. C. Mehta Deputy General Manager, Eastern Railway as the sole arbitrator by consent of the parties, and such arbitrator entered upon the reference and after hearing the parties, made an award in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 82,100/-. Such award was made on 26th February, 1965. The arbitrator sent carbon copies of the award signed by him to both the parties. So far as the appellant is concerned, the arbitrator forwarded the signed copy of the award to the appellant along with a forwarding letter dated 20th February, 1965, indicating therein that he had signed and published the award on 26th February, 1965, and the same was being sent for the information of the appellant. There is a dispute as regards the date when the said copy of the arbitration award and the forwarding letter dated 26th February, 1965 of the arbitrator were received by the appellant.

3. The appellant made an application on May 20, 1966 for making the award a Rule of Court and for directing the arbitrator to file the award in Court before the learned Subordinate Judge, Patna. The case of the appellant was that the said application was made by him under S. 17 of the Arbitration Act and not under S. 14 of the said Act. In the petition of objection to the said application for making the award a Rule of Court the plea of bar of limitation was not taken by the respondent and only at the stage of arguments, such contention of bar of limitation was raised by the respondent. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the award as valid. The learned Subordinate Judge also rejected the plea of bar of limitation. Accordingly the Misc. Case was allowed by the learned Subordinate Judge and the award was made a Rule of Court.

4. Being aggrieved by such decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, the respondent, Union of India preferred a Misc. Appeal No. 194 of 1961 in the High Court at Patna. In the appeal, the bar of limitation was raised by the Union of India for challenging the decision made by the correctness of the learned Sub-Judge. It was contended on behalf of the applicant Shri Binod Bihari Singh that the application was not barred by limitation and in any event, it was a fit case where delay, even if any, in presenting the application for making the award a Rule of Court should be condoned. It was contended by the applicant that he had received the signed copy of the award along with forwarding letter of the arbitrator only in first week of May, 1965 and as such the application made by him was not time barred. The High Court made a limited remand for answering two issues framed by it by the learned Subordinate Judge by keeping the Misc. Appeal pending. The issues directed to be dec