Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal impugning the order dated 06.04.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in O.M.P. No.89/2009 (hereinafter referred as the ‘impugned order’). By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the application bearing I.A. No.1711/2010 filed by the appellant under section 151 of CPC for condonation of delay of 166 days in re-filing the Objections under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2. The controversy involved in the present case is whether the delay of 166 days in re-filing the Objection under section 34 of the Act can be condoned beyond the statutory period of limitation of three months and thirty days as prescribed under section 34(3) of the Act.

3. The facts relevant for examining the controversy in the present appeal are briefly stated as under.

4. Certain disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent and the same were referred to arbitration. An arbitral award dated 02.04.2009 was made pursuant to the said reference. Being aggrieved with the award, the appellant filed an application under section 34 of the Act (being O.M.P. No.89/2009) whereby the appellant challenged a part of the arbitral award. Admittedly, the said Objections were filed on 24.07.2009 with a delay of 17 days. The Registry of this Court raised certain objections and the said application under section 34 of the Act was returned under objections on the same day. It has been stated by the appellant (in the application for condonation for delay in re-filing) that the award was on A4 size paper running into 147 pages and the same was required to be retyped and filed on legal size paper. The application under section 34 of the Act was re-filed on 24.08.2009 with a typed copy of the award on legal size paper. The Registry of this Court again raised certain objections and the said application was once again returned on the same day i.e. on 24.08.2009.

5. It is stated that the application was re-filed on 23.12.2009 after receiving the complete arbitral record. It has been stated by the appellant (in application for condonation for delay in re-filing) that a part of the record was not provided and in the absence of complete documents, counsel for the appellant could not re-file the Objection till 23.12.2009. It was also stated that the concerned Executive Engineer retired on 30.11.2009 which also delayed the re-filing. The Registry of this Court again raised certain objections and, as per the appellant, the application under section 34 of the Act was finally re-filed on 06.01.2010, after removing all the objections. Therefore, according to the appellant, there was a delay of 166 days in refiling the Objection. The appellant had filed an application bearing I.A. No.1711/2010 in OMP No. 89/2009 for condonation of delay of 166 days in re-filing the said application under section 34 of the Act.

6. However, as per the respondent, the delay in re-filing exceeds 166 days as, according to the respondent, the Registry of this Court had again pointed out certain defects on 06.01.2010 which were finally cured and the application under section 34 of the Act was re-filed for the last time on 05.02.2010 and not on 06.01.2010 as asserted by the appellant. It is contended by the respondent that the same is evident from the fact that the affidavits annexed with the application under section 34 of the Act, the stay application and the application for condonation of delay indicates that the same were attested on 01.02.2010. Therefore, as per the respondent, there was a delay of 195 days in re-filing the said application.

7. The learned Single Judge allowed the application (I.A. No.1710/2010 in O.M.P. No.89/2009) filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 17 days in filing the application under section 34 of the Act. However, the application (I.A. No.1711/2010 in O.M.P. No.89/2009) for condonation