The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the litigant is not negligent, the blame should not be put upon him, and the court may condone the delay in filing the application.

( 1 ) THE arbitrator Shri O P Anand had filed the award along with the proceedings. On 7/01/1994 notices were issued to the parties regarding the filing of the award and objections, if any. On 8/03/1994 the matter came up before the Deputy registrar. On behalf of the applicant/objector it was stated that objections have been filed on 14/02/1994 vide diary no. 4703. The Deputy registrar directed the office to trace the same and place the objections on the record. It was again taken up for hearing on 27/10/1994 and the order of the Deputy Registrar reads :-

"on 8. 3. 1994, learned counsel for the respondents had stated that he had filed the objections on behalf of the respondents. On enquiry from the office, it is revealed that the objections in fact have been filed in suit No. 35/93 and not in the present suit. No one is present on behalf of the respondents to clarify the petition. Let the matter be renotified for 8. 11. 1994 for clarification by the respondents about the objections. "

( 2 ) AGAIN the matter was listed on 8/11/1994 and on that date also there was no appearance on behalf of the objector. In the absence of any clarification, the Deputy Registrar directed the matter to be listed before the court.

( 3 ) ON 12/01/1995 on behalf of the claimant no appearance had been put in and this court made the award a rule of the court and decree in terms of the award was passed. The order reads :-

"shri O P Anand, Additional General Manager (T-D), the sole arbitrator made his award dated 29/09/1993 on the dispute which had arisen between the parties regarding purchase of LT XLPE cable of size 3-1/2 x 95 mm2. After the award was filed in Court, notice was issued to the parties. Parties were served. On behalf of the respondent a statement was made before the Deputy registrar on 8/03/1994 that objections to the award were preferred in the Registry vide DD No. 4703 on 14/02/1994. Since the objections were not on the record, an enquiry was made from the office and on 27/10/1994, it was noticed at objections were filed in Suit No. 35/93 and not in the present suit. No one was present on behalf of the respondents before the deputy Registrar on 27/10/1994. On the next two dates of hearing, nobody appeared for the respondents and nobody is appearing today for the respondents. The claimant has not filed any objection. There are no objections on behalf of the respondents on the record. There is also no reason why the award made by the arbitrator be not made rule of the court. I, accordingly, proceed to make the award rule of the court and pass a decree in the sum of rs. 40,07,225/- in favour of the claimant and against the respondents along with interest at the rate of 18% p. a. from 1. 1. 1994 till payment. The award shall form part of the decree. "

( 4 ) THE objector has filed an application (IA 3034/96) invoking the Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil procedure seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree of this court referred to above. It is accompanied by an application under section 5 of the limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.

( 5 ) IT had been asserted that on 8/03/1994 the counsel for the applicant Shri U Hazarika presented himself and had apprised the court that objections have been filed. The Deputy Registrar had directed the registry to trace the same. There was a typographical mistake and the objections were typed to have been filed in another suit rather than the present suit. Shri Hazarika was the regular counsel of the objector. On enquiries he always informed the objector/applicant that objections have been filed and never informed about the mistake that has occurred. He informed the applicant that the matter was progressing in normal course and that various formalities have to be completed such as filing of the reply, rejoinder and affidavits. Shri Hazarika had continued to handle the cases of the applicant. In the beginning of 1996 the Managing Director of the objector/applicant asked shri Hazarika and S