( 1 ) THIS revisi9n is directed against an order dated 15th July, 86 of the sub-court, Khammam, condoning the delay of 67 days in filing the O. P. , for making the award dated 29-10-1983 a rule of the Court.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts in brief are: Under a contract the revision-petitioner, was entrusted with some earth work of excavation of Madhira branch-canal by the respondent State of Andhra Pradesh. Since certain disputes arose during the execution of the said work between the parties, the matter was referred to a panel of arbitrators and an award was passed on 29-10-83. The state of Andhra Pradesh filed an application under section 17 of the arbitration Act, 1940 before the court below for making the award a rule of the court and passing a decree in terms thereof. Along with the said application, the respondent also filed the award. Though the award was received by the State on 5-6-84, while filing the application under Sec. 17 of the Arbitration Act on 5-9-1984, by way of abundant caution a petition to condone the delay in filing the suit, through the application referred to, was filed. The court below holding that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the proceedings under the Arbitration Act condoned the delay. Hence this revision.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Syed Shareef Ahmed, mainly contended that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the suits for purposes of condoning the delay and that since the proceedings originated through an application under Sec. 14 or 17 of the Arbitration Act culminated only in a suit the order under revision condoning the delay is illegal and liable to be set aside. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, contended that as per Sec. 29 (2) of the Limitation Act the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 are applicable to any special law, Arbitration Act in the present case, of course to the extent they have not been specifically excluded by such special law. Since there is no such exclusion in the provisions of the arbitration Act according to the learned Government Pleader, the Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act are applicable to the present proceedings. Apart from this the learned Government Pleader submitted, Section 37 of the arbitration Act positively speaks of application of the provisions of the limitation Act to the proceedings under the Arbitration Act and therefore, he contended, the court below has rightly condoned the delay.

( 4 ) BEFORE we deal with the contentions advanced, it is interesting to notice that the petitioner, as seen from the grounds of revision, seeks to assail the order under revision by taking the application filed bv the State as one under Section 14 and not under Sec. 17 of the Arbitration Act. It is, therefore, necessary at the outset to find out whether the application filed by the State is one under Sec. 14 or 17 of the Arbitration Act. To draw a distinction between the two sections, it is relevant to read them first. Section 14 reads:"14. Award to be signed and filed:- (1) When the arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award. (2) The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them, to be filed in court, and the court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. (3) Where the arbitrators or umpire state a special case under clause (b) of Sec. 13, the court, after giving notice to the parties and hearin