( 1 ) THESE are applications under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code and Section 5 of the Limitation Act respectively seeking setting aside of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 27. 7. 94 whereby an award was made a rule of the court and condonation of delay in moving the said application.

( 2 ) CANVASSING in favour of the applications the learned counsel for respondent No. l Ms Sudha Srivastava forcefully contended that the award made by the Arbitrator is contrary to clause 10c of the agreement and would vitiate the award in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vishwanath Sood vs. UOI, AIR 1989 S. C. 952 ( followed by this Court in Sudhir Bros vs. DDA suit No. 201-A!93 decided on 27. 1. 1995) and so the applications deserve to be dealt with sympathy. On the contrary, Mr Rajesh Lakahanpal learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for instantaneous dismissal of the applications, they being wholly devoid of merit. The question of merits in the main case being irrelevant at this stage, I would confine myself to be disposal of the applications.

( 3 ) THE case raises an issue of importance as to meaning of notice to the parties of the filing of the award within the meaning of Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and article ll9 (b) of the Limitation Act,1963.

( 4 ) FIRST, the facts in brief. The petitioner contractor had taken the "work of construction of CD chambers from T-type. M/h No. 3 at Lajpat Rai Marg Ring Road to Nehru Place Exchange New Delhi vide agreement No. 54/ee-111/81-82. Their arose disputes between the parties which were referred to adjudication by arbitrator Shri J. Pal, Superintending Engineer. The employer was the Chief Engineer ( Civil) Telecom ( NW) Zone, New Delhi.

( 5 ) THE Arbitrator having made and published, his award on 18. 12. 92, notice intimating the same as required by Section 14 (1) of the Arbitration Act was given to the parties along with a covering letter dated 1. 2. 93. The sole arbitrator filed the award in the court. The following two addresses are mentioned as footnote to the covering letter showing that the intimation was given by the arbitrator to the following parties:

1. Shri B. P. Sharma Engineer Civil Contractor, 60 Darya Ganj, New Delhi 110002

2. Executive Engineer ( Civil) Telecom Civil Division I, Chanakaya Puri Post Office Building New Delhi 100021

( 6 ) PROCEEDINGS under Sections 14,17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act were initiated before this Court on a petition filed by the contractor. In the cause title, the Executive Engineer ( Civil) abovesaid is neither impleaded, nor shown as a party. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, New Delhi and Shri J. Pal Arbitrator have only been shown as respondents. It appears that on this petition it was only respondent No. 2 the arbitrator, who was served and he filed the arbitration proceedings in the court along with a covering letter as stated hereinanbove,. On 19. 5. 93, the Joint Registrar directed notice of the filing of the award to issue to the parties without process fee.

( 7 ) IN the record, there are two processes (notices) available which appear to have been served and have been held tantamounting to service of notice of filing of the award on the respondent. The proforma and the contents of the two notices are identical except for the date of issue and the date on which the suit was coming up for hearing. It will be useful to reproduce the notice. It is as under:

HIGH COURT 0f DELHI in the matter of Suit No. 130/93 application No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . under b. P. Sharma. . . . . . . . Petitioner versus u. O. I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondents. To union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communications sanchar Bhawan, 20 Ashoka Road, new Delhi. WHEREAS. . . . . . . Shri J. Pal. . . . . . . . . . . . the Arbitrator has filed the award dated. . . . 18. 12. 92. . . . . . . delivered by th