The court clarified that the period of limitation for filing an application to set aside an award starts from the date the party receives notice or information from the court about the filing of the award, not from the date the party gains knowledge of the filing. The court also emphasized that a new plea of misconduct against the arbitrators for the purpose of challenging the award cannot be allowed to be raised after the expiry of the period of limitation.

S. Venkataraman, J. - This appeal is filed by respondent 3 in Arbitration Case No. 1/73 on the file of the Civil Judge, Hassan against his order rejecting his application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act and passing a decree in accordance with the award.

2. The appellant and respondent 5 are the sons of fourth respondent. First respondent is the son-in-law of fourth respondent and brother-in-law of the appellant and respondent 5. Second respondent is the brother-in-law of fourth respondent. Third respondent is a cousin of first respondent.

3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed the petition before the lower court under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') stating that the appellant and respondents 4 and 5 had referred their dispute regarding partition of their family properties to them by means of a deed of submission dated 23-1-1972, that on 24-1-1972 they met the appellant and respondents 4 and 5 and collected particulars regarding their properties and liabilities, that on 23-5-1972 the fourth respondent wrote a letter to them requesting them to decide their disputes as per the deed of submission and that on 21-9-1972 they have passed an award on a stamp paper and got the same registered. They also stated that they have given formal information about the passing of the award to all the parties by registered post on 25-10-1972 and that as requested by the parties they are filing their award in court for passing of a decree.

4. The court issued notices on the above petitioners. Respondents 4 and 5 had no objection to the passing of the award. But the appellant filed an that there was any reference for arbitration with regard to the dispute regarding partition or that the arbitrators inquired him in that regard. He alleged that his signatures were taken on some papers without disclosing their contents and that the respondents 1 to 3, in collusion with respondent 4 and 5, had forged his signatures and got up some documents. He asserted that all the properties of the family had not been included in the award and that the partition effected by the arbitrators is highly inequitable. He also contended that the award had not been filed in court in time. He further alleged that on account of the conduct of the arbitrators he has been put to great loss and injustice and that as such the award should be set aside.

5. During the course of the inquiry the first respondent, fourth respondent and the appellant were examined. On the material on record the learned Civil Judge has held that the case of the appellant that his signature was taken on some documents without disclosing its contents or that his signatures have been forged had not been made out. He has held that the deed of submission has come into existence as stated by the arbitrators and that all the legal requirements for initiation of arbitrators proceedings and factual existence of differences between the appellant and respondents 4 and 5 had been established. He has also held that the arbitration proceedings were carried on as stated by the arbitrators and that the appellant had not proved any misconduct on the part of the arbitrators which would render the proceedings null and void. He has also negatived the contention raised by the respondents that the application filed by the appellant for setting aside of the award was barred by limitation. On these findings the learned Civil Judge has rejected the appellant's application and as consequence he had passed a decree in accordance with the terms of the award.

6. In this appeal Sri V. Tarakaram, learned senior advocate, appearing for the appellant, did not seek to question the findings of the lower court that there was a valid reference made by the appellant and respondents 4 and 5 with regard to their dispute pertaining to the partition of the family properties or that the arbitrators have conducted the proceedings in accordance with law. He mainly urged two grounds in support of the