( 1 ) VIKRAMAJIT Sen, J. This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner for amendment of the Objections to the Award dated 24. 4. 1998. Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been invoked. In brief, the case of the petitioner/applicant is that it had been led to understand that Shri C. L. Anand had died intestate and that his son, Shri Pradeep Anand, should, therefore, be impleaded in place of his deceased father. In the interim Award dated 20. 3. 1997 the learned Arbitrator had recorded that, "the applicant Shri Pradeep Anand claims to be the son and legal heir of Shri C. L. Anand (deceased ). He and members of the family of the late Shri C. L. Anand would like to continue and to proceed with this arbitration proceedings; hence this application".

( 2 ) IN the present application it has been stated that, "respondent No. 1 dishonestly suppressed the fact that Shri C. L. Anand had died leaving a Will, in which his wife Mrs. Shiela Anand was named as the sole heir. This fact has come to light only very recently in the Affidavit by way of evidence in rebuttal of respondent No. 1 dated 22. 3. 1999 filed by respondent No. 1 before the arbitrator. This crucial fact was not known to the petitioner at any time prior thereto and was not disclosed by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner at the relevant time during the period 1996 to 1997 when the said application for substitution was considered". It is worthy to note that despite the rigours of limitation being ominously present, the applicant has not bothered to state, with any exactitude, the date of gaining knowledge of the facts.

( 3 ) THE application which falls for consideration was filed on 29. 5. 1999. The non-applicants have opposed the application on the grounds that it is barred by limitation.

( 4 ) IA No. 2411/1999 in Suit No. 1084-A/1998 are the Objections filed on 16. 3. 1999 by the plaintiff/applicant to the said Award. If this application were to be allowed, these Objections would stand amended.

( 5 ) AS will be seen, the view taken by the Courts is that it does not possess any power / discretion in condoning the delay and therefore it must be extremely careful while allowing amendments to pleadings in the nature of Objections. While a liberal approach is recommended to permitting amendments to pleadings which are not time bound, the position stands altered in other cases. The judgment of the Division Bench in Hastimal Dalichand Bora and Ors. v. Hiralal Motichand Mutha, AIR 954 Bombay 243 was authored by gajendragadkar, J. as His Lordship then was. It was held that "the Court would have no jurisdict:on to consider the contentions raised in such an application when it has been filed beyond time". Thereafter the learned Judge made the following observations: "section 33 deals with the applications to be made by the parties. Before we consider the provisions of this section, it may be relevant to point out that Section 32 enacts a bar to suits contesting arbitration agreements or awards. In other words, all questions with regard to the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement or an award must be determined by the Court in which the award under the agreement has been or may be filed under the provisions of the Arbitration Act and the decision of the court in these proceedings is final and cannot be challenged by a separate suit. This marks an important departure from the provisions relating to awards contained in Sch. II of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 33, therefore, requires parties to make applications if they wish to challenge the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement or an award or to have the effect of either determined, and it lays down the procedure for dealing with applications which are made under this section. Article 158 of the Limitation Act prescribes a limitation of thirty days for the purpose of applications made for remitting or setting aside an award. It is perfectly true that if a party to an award want

Click Here to Read the rest of this document