( 1 ) THIS is an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC moved on behalf of the respondent/judgment debtor seeking review of the judgment/order dated 17. 9. 98 whereby the objections filed by the respondent against the Award of the Sole Arbitrator dated 10. 10. 94 have been dismissed as time barred and the Award of the Sole Arbitrator has been made a rule of the Court.

( 2 ) ON 17. 4. 94, Mr. Inder Jit Gulati, Sole Arbitrator filed his Award dated 10. 10. 94 in the Court and the parties were issued notice of filing of the Award returnable for 18. 9. 95. Counsel for the petitioner had accepted the notice on the same day but did not choose to file any objections within the stipulated period. It is alleged in the application that objections to the Award were filed on 23. 8. 95 and not on 18. 1. 96 as has been noted by the Court in the order dated 17. 9. 98. This is stated to be an error apparent on the face of the record and it is pleaded that had the true facts that the respondent was served with the notice of filing of the Award on 23. 7. 95 and filed the objections on 23. 8. 95 had been correctly noted by the Court, there was only one day delay in filing of the objections to the Award. Along with the review application an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 read with Section 151 CPC has also been moved seeking condonation of one day s delay in filing the objections on the ground that the counsel for the respondent namely Mr. Y. K. Mathur gave the respondent to understand that as service of the parties of filing of the Award was effected upon the respondent on 23. 7. 95, the objections could be filed uptill 23. 8. 95.

( 3 ) THE decree holder has opposed the application raising preliminary objections about the maintainability of the application for review of the impugned order under the provisions of Order 47 CPC; no grounds on which review of the order/judgment of the Court is permissible have been alleged or proved on record; Respondent/judgment debtor had only remedy of appeal to challenge the order of the Court if according to him it was illegal or suffered from any other infirmity. The application for review is stated to be time barred and is not supported by any affidavit of the judgment debtor. It is not denied that the respondent filed its objection petition bearing IA No. 1186/96 dated 21. 8. 95 purported to have been filed on 23. 5. 95 under filing No. 11392 but it is stated that the said IA was lying in the Registry with the following objections:

1. Order dated 10. 1. 95 not complied with 2. Court fee on Power of Attorney, not fixed. 3. I. A. was not typed in double space.

( 4 ) THE respondent had, therefore, to take back the objection petition to remove the said objections. Counsel for the respondent/judgment debtor Shri K. C. Dewan took back the objection on 2. 2. 96 under his signatures and after removing the objections re-filed the same by affixing the court fee on the Vakalatname of the same date. The objection petition so filed was also stated to be defective in several respects. It is denied that the plaintiff is entitled to seek review of the impugned order or the impugned order dated 17. 9. 98 is liable to be recalled on any of the grounds.

( 5 ) APPLICATION for condonation of delay has also been opposed on similar grounds as also on the ground that there was if effect delay of about 6 months in filing of the objections and not of one day because the respondent failed to remove the office objections for a long time despite opportunities granted for the purpose. It is denied that there are sufficient grounds for condonation of delay.

( 6 ) I have heard Shri S. K. Mehra, learned counsel representing the decree holder and Shri V. P. Chaudhary, Sr. Adv. representing the judgment debtor/non-applicant and have given my thoughtful consideration to their submissions.

( 7 ) BEFORE I proceed to examine the merits and the grounds on which the review has been sought it is p