( 1 ) THE Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had awarded a contract for the construction of 1092 Janta Houses at Pasehim Vihar, New Delhi to the Petitioner in 1980- 81. In this connection disputes arose between these parties which were REFERRED TO, in 1990, to the Sole Arbitration of the Engineer Member of the DDA. A reasoned Award dated 20. 12. 1994, in favour of the Petitioner was published subsequently. lt was for an amount of approximately Rs. 40 lakhs. Suit No. 197-A of 1995 has been filed by the Petitioner under Sections 14 (2), 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act. 1940 for pronouncing a decree in terms of the Award. Notice of this Petition/suit was served on the DDA on 27. 9. 1995. requiring it to file Objection, if any, within thirty days. These Objections, numbered as IA 58/96 in Suit No. 197-A/95 were eventually filed on 2. 1. 1996, accompanied with an application. IA. No. 57/1996 for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read wilh Section 151 Civil Procedure Code All three applications shall be disposed off by these orders. I. A. 57/1996.

( 2 ) IT has been averred by the DDA that the notice of Suit 197-A/1995 was served on the DDA on 4. 10. 1995. but the Legal Branch inadvertently directed the notice to the Exceutive Engineer (WD- 8) on the same date; and was received by the latter two days later, on 6. 10. 1995. lt was then sent back to the legal Branch on 9. 10. 1995 stating that matter did not pertain to the WD. 8. The Iegial Assistant thereupon REFERRED TO the matter to the Movement Clerk in the High Court on 10. 10. I995. and the latter gave his Report on 8. 11. 1995. Thereupon the legal Assistant asked for a copy of the Movement Register, whieh was supplied on 13. 12. 1995 and the file was again sent to the Executive Engineer of WD-8 on that date. On 20. 12. 1995 W,d-8 returned the file to the Legal Assistant and it reached the Executive Engineer WD-12 on 20. 12. 1995. It was still ignored. But some other matter brought the Assistant Engineer WD-12 to the Legal Branch on 22. 12. 1995 when this Offieer came across the subject notice in this office. The prayer for condonation of delay in filing the Objection is predicated on these facts, and supported by an affidavit of Shri C. Banerjee, Chief Engineer South East Zone, DDA. The affidavit does not disclose whether the averment made in the application are true to the deponent s knowledge, or on information received by him from the DDA records and believed by him to be true. A Rejoinder has also been filed which has been supported by an affidavit of Shri Amit Biswa Chief Engineer (West Zone), and as in the earlier instance, does not disclose the source or fountainhead on the strength of which instructions were issued by this Offieer. No documents have been filed to substantiate these averments. It is obviously too sanguine to expect that special care will be taken even in special eases already rendered grievously hurt vulnerable and damaged by delay.

( 3 ) IT is for the DDA to put its house in order so that such mindless neglect in handling of important files is not occasioned again Conseienee compets to express that it is quite possible that delay was intended to be caused, since the file is stated to have been wrongly sent to WD-8 on 4. 10. 1995 and thereafter again on 13. 12. 1995 which once again held onto it till 20. 12. 1995. No blame or responsibility for this ineptitude in handling public funds appears to have been fastened. The only controversy that does not exist is that the Objections to the Award have been filed after considerable, and inordinate delay.

( 4 ) IT has been contended by Shri Rajiv Nayyar, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Contractor, that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not available to the DDA and that the Court has no discretionary power to condone the delay or enlarge the statutory period for filing Objections. It is his submission that the Objections are in the nature of a suit in contradistinc