( 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