ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. All these revision applications have been filed against the different Awards, passed by the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal in different Reference Cases, alongwith the interlocutory applications for condonation of dealy.

3. At the time of consideration of the limitation petition the opposite party raised preliminary objection with regard to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to a proceedings under Section 13 of Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 (the Act of 2008) has been excluded by necessary implication, by virtue of language employed in Section 17 of the said Act.

4. This Court has considered Section 17 of the Act of the 2008, which reads as follows: –

“In computing the period of limitation laid down in sub-section (1) of Section 8, and sub-section (2) of Section 11 and sub-section (1) of Section 12, the provisions of Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall, so far as may be, apply.”

5. Mr. Rajendra Naraya