GITA MITTAL, J.

( 1 ) BY this judgment, I propose to dispose of LA. Nos. 11211/2006 and 13058/2006 filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In as much as the applications are based on identical facts, these applications are taken up together for consideration.

( 2 ) HAVING heard learned counsels for the parties, I find that there is no dispute to the material dates. I find that the arbitral award dated 16th september, 2005 was received by the petitioner from the arbitrator. Inasmuch as no specific date of receipt is mentioned, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the same may be presumed to have been received on the same date.

( 3 ) THE petitioner thereupon filed objections under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge, Delh. These objections were registered as Suit No. 161/2005 and were listed before the court of Shri Y. Kumar, Additional District Judge, Delh. The respondent filed its reply on the 26th December, 2005 wherein a specific objection was taken that the court did not possess the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the objections and that the same were liable to be rejected. The respondent had also pointed out the fact that the reference to the arbitration was made pursuant to orders passed by this court on the 18th February, 2003 in A. A. No. 10/2003. Copy of the order passed by this court was also placed on record along with the reply.

( 4 ) DESPITE these objections, the petitioner persisted with the objections before the same court. It was only on the 25th May, 2006 that a statement was made by Mr. S. P. Ali, Executive Engineer, Civil Division-IV, INFC department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi whereby he sought permission to withdraw the petition with the liberty to file the same in this court. In the statement which was made, Shri S. P. Ali had stated that the respondent had taken an objection that the jurisdiction is determined by the claim in the petition and not by the award. In these circumstances, by an order passed on the same date. e. , the 25th of May, 2006, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file the same in this court.

( 5 ) THE submission of the petitioner before this court is that in these circumstances, the present objections have been filed before this court on the 12th of August, 2006. By way of LA. No. 13058/2006, the respondent has submitted that for the period that the matter was being bona fide proceeded with in the district court, the petitioner would be entitled to condonation of delay. According to the petitioner, there is delay of only 73 days in filing the objections before this court. Reliance has been placed on the provisions of Section 14 of the limitation Act, 1963 and the pronouncement of the Apex Court reported at air 2003 SC 2525 State of Goa v. M/s Western Builders in support of these submissions.

( 6 ) SO far as the limitation for filing objections is concerned the same is statutorily prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996 which reads thus:-

"34. Application for setting aside arbitral award - (1) xxxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxxx (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: provided that if the court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter. "

( 7 ) THE statutory scheme limits the extent of judicial intervention in proceedings under the Arbitration Act. There is no dispute that the permissible period of three months for filing the objections commencing from 16th September, 2005 had ended on the 1