(1). An Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 made an arbitration in terms of arbitration clause in the agreement over disputes between the parties in respect of execution of the agreement entered into by and between the parties on 14th March, 2001. An award was passed which according to the Union of India is vitiated by partial attitude of the arbitrator, and that it was decided ex parte. Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act an appeal was preferred by the opposite party against the award. Since the appeal was time barred an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was taken out by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore.

(2). The learned Additional District Judge by an order dated 26th of July, 2006 allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,500/- Before the learned Judge in the Court below the opposite party took out the plea that there was 60 days delay in preferring the appeal and since the Government machinery did not run speedily there was delay in preferring the appeal against the award which is vitiated by non-adherence to the principle of natural justice. The Judge was of the opinion that since the petitioner was the Union of India they are to go through some processes which take time and the legality of award was also the ground for condonation of delay. The Court observed that it was also a Court of equity which cannot overlook the opposite partys plea for advancement of justice in the matter of adjudication of the dispute.

(3). An application under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC was taken out by the petitioner for review of the order dated 26th of July, 2006 on the ground that in view of the express language of the statute the order impugned was a bad one thus necessitating its turning over. The review application was dismissed by the order dated 4th of December, 2007.

(4). The learned Judge in the Court below refused to accept the position though it was pointed out to him that there was no scope of making an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in view of sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short the Act). The Judge noted some citations as was referred to by both the parties but observed that he was unable to interfere with the order passed on 26th of July, 2006.

(5). The petitioner-defendant No. 1 M/s. Darbar Industries being aggrieved with the order has taken out this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail both the orders i.e. the order dated 26th of July, 2006 and the order dated 4th of December 2007.

(6). Learned Advocate for the opposite party No. 1 took out a preliminary point regarding maintainability of this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the petitioner who was favoured with an award by the arbitrator did not challenge the original order dated 26th of July, 2006 but has preferred this application to challenge the order dated 4th of December, 2007 which cannot be assailed because of the fact that the order dated 26th of July, 2006 could not be legally reviewed by the learned judge. I am unable to accept the submission. The present application before this Court is one under Article 227 of the Constitution wherein the Court has to examine the legality, propriety of the order or orders passed by a subordinate Court just to see whether the Court had jurisdiction to pass any such order. If there is any error on the face of the record, if the law prohibits a Court from doing something, if a special statute provides a special law of limitation but the Court overlooks and ignores the position of law then obviously invoking the Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India so as to invite the attention of the Court to the illegality committed by the subordinate Court cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and the question