( 1 ) ADMIT. The learned Advocate for the respondents waives service. By consent, heard forthwith.

( 2 ) THIS appeal arises from the order dated 10-1-2005 passed in Arbitration petition No. 451 of 2004. By the impugned order, the arbitration petition filed for setting aside the award made by the arbitration committee of the Stock Exchange has been dismissed.

( 3 ) THE challenge to the impugned order is on two grounds: firstly, that the learned single Judge failed to take note of the fact that the arbitration proceedings were sought to be initiated after the expiry of the period of limitation, as prescribed under the Bye-laws and secondly that the appellant had already paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondents.

( 4 ) PERUSAL of the impugned order apparently discloses that the point regarding bar of limitation was not raised before the learned arbitrator and, therefore, the same being a mixed question of law and fact, the learned single judge has rejected the petition under section 34 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996, hereinafter called as "the said Act", which was to be filed on the said ground of bar of limitation. Secondly, the contenti