( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of these two applications. They have been filed by the defendant/judgment debtor in the suit. The facts leading up to the filing of these two applications are in a very short compass. An arbitration award dated 15. 10. 1988 made by Shri V. D. Mishra, an Ex-Judge of this court and a retired Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court was filed in this Court. Notices of filing of the award were served on the parties. Objections to the award were filed on behalf of the defendant/applicant herein. These objections were registered as I. A. No. 2278/89.

( 2 ) AFTER the matter was ripe for hearing it was listed in court on 15. 3. 1990. No one appeared on that date on behalf of the objector and the matter was adjourned to 27. 6. 1990. On 27. 7. 1990 also none appeared in court on behalf of the Objector. A perusal of the order sheet of that date shows that the matter was called out twice. Obviously, therefore, the matter must have been passed over on the first call. l. A. No, 2278/89 was dismissed on that date and the award datedl5. 10. 1988 was made a rule of the court. It was also ordered that a decree be prepared in terms of the. award and that the award will form a part of the decree. The decree dated 27. 7. 1990 was also drawn up.

( 3 ) ON 31. 8. 1990 the decree holder filed Ex. No. 142/90. On 3. 9. 90 i. e. , after 37 days of 27. 7. 1990 the judgment debtor/defendant/applicant filed I. As 7250-51/90. No application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed. l. A. 7250/90 is. an application under O. 9, R. 13 of the Civil P. C. (for short Civil Procedure Code) praying that the ex parte decree be set aside and the objections be restored, heard and decided on merit. The other, application is under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying that the operation of the "ex parte" decree be stayed. Notices were issued in these applications. and replies have been filed. It may be noticed here that vide order dated 11. 10. 1990 conditional stay of the execution of the decree was granted and the Judgement Debtor was directed to deposit within two months from the said date, an amount at the rate of Rs. 1,400 per month w. e. f. October, 1982. The judgment debtor failed to do so.

( 4 ) INTER alia it has been avered in the restoration application that on 15. 3. 1990 the objector s counsel came to the court fully prepared for arguments but reached late. It is further stated that on enquiry by the said counsel he was informed that the case had been adjourned and that counsel mistook the date of next hearing as 27. 8. 1990 instead of 27. 7. 1990. It is, therefore, alleged that on account of the bonafide mistake with regard to the date of hearing neither the objector nor his counsel appeared on 27. 7. 1990. It is, however, not stated as to who informed the said counsel. It is alleged that neither of them was aware of that date of hearing until inspection of the file was carried out on 31. 8. 90. Photocopies of the relevant pages from the diary of the advocate of the objector dated 15. 3. 1990, 27. 7. 1990 and 27. 8. 1990 have been filed to show that a bona fide mistake regarding the date occurred. The decree holder has filed a reply in opposition to this application. Along with the reply a photocopy of page 14 of the cause list of the Original Side of this court for 27. 7. 1990 has been filed as annexure b to show that Mr. Issar had another case in this court on that date before another learned Judge,

( 5 ) MR. V. M. Issar, learned Advocate for the applicant/respondent/ judgment debtor referred to the order dated 27. 7. 90 and urged that an ex parte decree was passed because no one had appeared on behalf of the objector/applicant on 27. 7. 1990. Consequently, he submitted that an application under O. 9, R. 13 of the Civil Procedure Code being I. A. 7250/90 has been filed for setting aside the ex parte decree, Mr. Issar conceded that he did attend to the hearing of the other case on