JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. - Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

EX.F.A. 4/2021 and CM APPL. 7043/2021

2. The instant appeal has been preferred against an order dated 24.11.2020 passed by the learned ADJ in Ex. No. 1361/2019.

2.1 However, to adjudicate upon the present appeal, the following background facts are required to be noticed.

2.2 Upon inter se disputes erupting between the parties herein, the matter was referred to a sole arbitrator. The adjudication by the arbitrator led to the passing of the award dated 25.09.2007. It appears that both parties were aggrieved by the award and, consequently, preferred petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 1996 Act ).

2.3 The petition filed by the respondent was dismissed on 17.12.2007, while the petition filed by the petitioner-corporation was dismissed, albeit, for non-prosecution on 29.11.2016.

2.4 Being aggrieved, the respondent lodged an appeal. This appeal was numbered as FAO(OS) 61/2008.

2.5 The appeal was disposed of with the direction to the petitioner-corporation to pay an additional amount pegged at Rs.91,660/-, along with interest at the rate awarded by the arbitrator (i.e. at the rate of 9% per annum), for the period commencing from the date when the claim was filed before the arbitrator and ending on the date of payment.

2.6 Insofar as the petitioner-Corporation was concerned, against the order dated 29.11.2016, it preferred a restoration application which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this court via order dated 06.03.2020. Pertinently, while dismissing the application for restoration, in paragraph 8 of the order, the learned Single Judge at the behest of the counsel for the petitioner-corporation recorded the following: "....8. At this stage, Ms. Pushkarna states that execution proceedings, filed by the respondent before the Court of the ADJ (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, have been adjourned to 01.04.2020. She submits that the Nr.DMC requires 8 weeks time to make payment of the award amount to the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent, who is present on caveat, states that the execution proceedings will not be pressed for a period of eight weeks from today.....

2.7 It is not in dispute that at the point in time when the aforementioned order dated 06.03.2020 came to be passed the execution petition was pending consideration of the learned ADJ. As a matter of fact, I am told that the matter was listed on the same day before the learned ADJ(a copy of that order has been placed before me by Mr. Hemant Gupta, who appears for the respondent). A perusal of a copy of the order dated 06.03.2020 passed in the execution proceeding shows that on that date the matter was simply adjourned for arguments on the objection-petition. I am informed that the said objection-petition was filed by the petitioner-corporation under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2.8 The said objection petition preferred by the petitioner-corporation came to be disposed of via the impugned order dated 24.11.2020.

3. Ms. Namrata Mukim, who appears for the petitioner-corporation, says that the impugned order is erroneous given the fact that the period of limitation as provided in Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short 1963 Act ) had expired.

3.1 According to Ms. Mukim, period of limitation provided under the said Article is 12 years, which commenced from the date of the award i.e. 25.09.2007 while the execution petition was filed on 26.11.2019.

4. I may also indicate that I had queried Ms. Mukim as to effect the statement recorded by the learned Single Judge on 06.03.2020 (which has been extracted hereinabove). In response to the query, Ms. Mukim submitted that statement could not bind the petitioner-corporation. It was her submission that, at best, it could be taken as a concession in law, which, cannot bind the petitioner-corporation, and therefore, it was entitled to press the objections