A party seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must show sufficient cause for the delay. The cause of delay must be beyond the control of the party and could not have been avoided with due care and attention.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for and on behalf of the respondents under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring the objections to the award dated December 7,. 1990 by the sole arbitrator Shri N. H. Chandwani which was filed before the Court on May 28, 1991.

( 2 ) IT would be just and proper to examine the facts of the present case which led to the present application in order to fully and properly appreciate the points involved herein. Shri N. H. Chandwani was appointed as the sole arbitrator in the present case. He filed the award dated December 7, 1990 before the Registrar of this Court on May 28, 1991. The Registrar of this Court thereafter issued notices to both the parties with regard to the filing of the award. The petitioner was served with said notice on June 28, 1991. The respondent were served with the same on July 8,1991. The respondent were thus required to file objections, if any, against the aforesaid award within the statutory period of 30 days from the date of service of the notice. Thus, if the period of limitation is computed from the said date the respondent should have filed their objections by August 7, 1991. However, the respondent for the best reasons known to them filed their objections on August 28, 1991. It implies thereby that the said objections were filed beyond the period of limitation. Hence arose the necessity for the presentation of the present application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 20 days in preferring the said objections against the award alluded to above.

( 3 ) IT is a well-established principle of law that a duty has been cast on the shoulders of the Court to construe the provisions of the Limitation Act strictly and the delay, if any, can be condoned only in those discerning few cases wherein the applicant is in a position to explain the delay of each and every day and where he is in a position to show that the delay which occurred was beyond his control and power such as vis major. I am supported in my above view by the observations of Mr. Justice S. C. Ghose, J. as reported in Soorajmull Nagarmal v. Golden Fibre and Products, AIR 1969 Cal 381 (para 15 ). . . . . . . .

"but sufficient cause within the contemplation of S. 5 must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the section. The cause of delay in making the application which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of S. 5 of the Limitation Act. "

( 4 ) WITH the above background let us now examine the case in hand. The petitioner moved the application under disposal under S. 5 of the Limitation Act on August 28,1991 along with an affidavit sworn by one Pyara Singh, Executive Engineer. A close scrutiny of the said affidavit reveals that no reason whatsoever was mentioned therein as to why the objections could not be preferred within the statutory period of 30 days from the service of the notice. Similarly, Shri Pyara Singh, Executive Engineer, is conspicuously silent on the point of delay in his affidavit of the same date i. e. August 28, 1991. It appears that the wisdom dawned on the applicant later on when they came forward with another affidavit in the form of an additional affidavit sworn by said Pyara Singh, Executive Engineer, where he tries to make a futile attempt to explain the delay in preferring the said objections. Surprisingly enough no reason whatsoever has been given as to why the said reasons were not enumerated by him in his earlier affidavit i. e. the affidavit dated August 28, 1991. Furthermore, after going through the said affidavit i. e. dated November 22, 1991 I find that he has not sworn the said affidavit on his personal knowledge. His knowledge is derivative inasmuch as the same has been derived from one Shri Krishan Lal, Assistant Engineer. Thus, I feel that the said affidavit is of no avail to the petitioner. Affidavit, if any, I am firmly of the vie