VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

1. The present Appeal impugns the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.12.2005, whereby the application for condonation of delay in filing Objections to the Award was rejected and consequently the latter were not looked into on the

premise that they were barred from consideration due to the laws of prescription.

2. The Appellant, at the very outset, has been confronted with the question of maintainability of the Appeal. Mr. Harish Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant, contends that the rejection of the application for condonation of delay has the effect of the dismissal of his Objections which, in turn, results in the refusal to set aside the subject Award. In these circumstances, goes the argument, it is contended that such Orders are appealable under Section 39 (1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The learned Senior Counsel also places reliance on the Letters Patent to submit that even in the Delhi High Court any judgment passed by a Single Judge is assailable before a Division Bench if the judgment or order has the effect of finally determining the rights of either of the parties. Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel for