The court permitted the condonation of delay due to previous proceedings in a wrong forum and pandemic-related delays, emphasizing liberal construction of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT

I.A. 1650/2022 (u/S 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for condonation of delay of 633 days for filing the accompanying petition)

1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as the Act) for condonation of delay in filing/refiling of the petition under Section 34 of the Act.

2. It is submitted in the application that the petitioner had preferred the petition under Section 34 of the Act seeking setting aside of the Arbitral Award dated 14.03.1919 read with modified Award dated 16.04.2019, in respect of claim no. 13 and claim no. 17. The copy of the bona fide belief that petition under Section 34 of the Act is maintainable before the Hon'ble District Judge based on the value of the claims that it had challenged in the petition under Section 34, the petitioner filed the petition before the District Court on 22.07.2019 within the period of limitation. The matter remained pending before the Hon'ble District Judge for filing of the reply/objection to the petition by the respondent. Thereafter, the issue of maintainability was raised by the respondent in regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The petitioner withdrew the petition with liberty to file the same before the appropriate court which was allowed by Order dated 12.04.2021. Immediately after the withdrawal of the petition, the petitioner prepared its petition under Section 34 of the Act for filing in this court but due to the spread of Covid-19 pandemic and limited functioning at the office of the petitioner and change of counsels, the petition could be filed only on 21.12.2021.

3. The petitioner has stated that it pursued its objections before the learned District Judge for 633 days in a bona fide manner and in good faith on a mistaken basis of valuation of the petition for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction. It is further explained that physical functioning of the High Court remained suspended and was resumed only from 30.05.2022. It is submitted that Section 14 of the Limitation Act.1963 provides for exclusion of the period during which the party pursues its remedy before a wrong forum. In the case of M.P. Housing Board v. Mohanlal & Co., reported as (2016) 14 SCC 199, the Supreme Court held that there has to be a liberal interpretation of the section to advance the cause of justice and requisite importance has to be given to the prosecution of prior proceedings which should be shown to have been pursued with due diligence and in good faith. The petition under Section 34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act remained pending before the District Court from 22.7.2019 till it was withdrawn on 12.04.2021. The present objections have been filed in the Court on 21.12.2021. A prayer is made to condone/exclude the period of 633 days for the reasons stated in the application.

4. The respondent in his reply, has claimed that from the averments made in the petition itself, it is evident that the petition has not been filed within the time stipulated in Section 34 of the Act and no separate application under Section 34(3) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, has been filed. It is claimed that the various orders of the Hon'ble District Judge, Saket reveal that the petitioner did not pur