MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the objection under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award dated 28th May, 2013.

2. The objections were filed with the Registry of this Court on 26th August, 2013 and the same was returned with objections on 27th August, 2013.

3. After removing the defects, the objections ought to have been filed by 3rd September, 2013 but the same were filed on 21st October, 2013 with a delay of 55 days in re-filing. It is submitted that the delay is inadvertent and unintentional.

4. Therefore, an application being I.A. No. 18319/2013 under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 55 days in re-filing has been filed.

5. It is stated in the application that the delay in re-filing the petition was neither deliberate nor intentional but due to bona-fide reasons.

6. Reply on behalf of the respondent to the application under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay in re-filing has been filed who strongly opposed the prayer.

7. It is submitted in the reply that in the objections as averred under Para 2 of the application, the petitioner in the garb of re-filing; (i) wanted to make certain changes in the petition of which comments were needed from officials of the petitioner Company, (ii) therefore, comments were incorporated in the revised draft of the petition, (iii) Counsel sought final approval from the petitioner Company to file the same.

8. It is also stated by the respondent that the petitioner manoeuvred to buy time to overcome the delay and laches in filing the petition which lay at the petitioner's door. The process of filing revised petition in the garb of removing defects/re-filing was not formal or ancillary but of a substantial nature which changed the very nature of the original petition under Section 34 of the Act after removal of the defects would render a petition/plaint, a non petition in the eyes of law, and the date of re-filing would be the date of presentation and not the original presentation.

9. It is alleged in the reply that the petition filed on 26th August, 2013 was different from the petition filed after re-filing in the garb of removing defects and cannot attract re-filing but is a case of fresh filing. The reason spelt out in para 2 of the application shows total callousness. The petition under Section 34 of the Act was drafted in very casual manner/half baked (originally filed). The objections were filed by the petitioner, i.e. the original filing was on 26th August, 2013 but the Index and Index-I of the paper book are dated 19th October, 2013, Section 34 petition last page is dated 26th August, 2013 but the affidavit in support of the petition is dated 21st October, 2013. Similarly, Index-II is dated 19th October, 2013, the application under reply is dated 19th October, 2013, the affidavit in support of the application is dated 21st October, 2013. Index-III is dated 19th October, 2013 and the vakalatnama is dated 10th October, 2013, Court fees was purchased on 19th October, 2013 and 21st October, 2013, Index-IV is dated 19th October, 2013, index showing the list of documents is also dated 19th October, 2013.

Therefore, the delay of 55 days in re-filing is not bona-fide and diligent explanation to condone the delay rather it is an abuse of the due process of law wherein the entire petition has been freshly drafted. Re-filing process has been adopted just to revert back to the original date of filing, i.e. 26th August, 2013. It is also submitted that the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner is contrary to the mandate of the legislature as award puts an end to arbitration. It is submitted that it is the duty of the Court to respect the legislative intent qua the inelastic period of limitation prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act. Limitation cannot be extended by invoking the inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC when the delay in re-filing is found repugnant to the legislative intent of Section 34