( 1 ) ). The plaintiff and the defendant are brothers. On 15th September 1955 partition of the joint family estate between them was effected. Plaintiff thereafter was running Bidi business. On account of some physical handicap he was unable to run it. Therefore he authorized the defendant to run it on his behalf and executed in that behalf a power of attorney dated 19th September 1956. For 17 years the defendant carried on the plaintiffs business. The plaintiff in 1973 found that the defendant had been mismanaging the business. He therefore cancelled his power of attorney on 23rd March 1973 Disputes arose between the parties in the matter of the plaintiffs business which was run by the defendant for 17 years. They therefore agreed on 6th April 1973 to refer the disputes to an arbitrator. The disputes were referred to the arbitrator. The arbitrator did not make award and therefore that arbitration failed. Thereafter Suit No. 38 of 1974 was filed under sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 for direction that arbitration agreement be filed in Court. It was decreed. Thereafter disputes were referred to the arbitrator. On 21st September 1977 the arbitrator made his award. On 23rd September 1977 the arbitrator gave the parties notice that he was filing the award in Court. On 26th September 1977 it was filed in Court. Within 30 days thereafter the parties were required to file objections. The plaintiff however made several applications for time to file his objections. Ultimately he filed them on 7 December 1977. The learned trial Judge dismissed them on the ground that they were barred by limitation.

( 2 ) IT is that order which is challenged in the first appeal as well as in the Civil Revision Application. The Civil Revision Application has been filed on the assumption that the first appeal may not be maintainable.

( 3 ) NOW the undisputed factual position is as follows. The arbitrator made his award on 21st September 1977. On that very day he took the signature of the plaintiff on the award in token of his having pronounced it. Therefore the plaintiff had on 21st September 1977 notice of the arbitrator having made the award. Art. 119 (b) of the Limitation Act provides that an application for setting aside an award made under Arbitration Act 1940 can be made within thirty days from the date of service of the notice of the filing of the award. The award was filed on 26th September 1977. The plaintiff knew of it on that day. Therefore the plaintiff was required to make an application to set aside the award on or before 26th October 1977 He however made an application for setting aside the award or what he calls lodged objections to the award on 7th December 1977. Before the expiry of the period of limitation he made an application on 10th October 1977 to the learned trial Judge for granting him time to file objections to the award. The learned trial Judge granted time to file objections to the award until 18th October 1977. On that day a fresh application for time was made to the learned trial Judge who granted it and extended time until 25th October 1977. On 25th October 1977 the learned trial Judge granted a similar application extending time until the 4 November 1977. On 4th November 1977 on a similar application made the learned trial Judge the learned trial Judge granted time until 1st December 1977. On 1st December 1977 the learned trial Judge made the following order on on such application Granted if law permits to file objections and adjourned the case to 7th December 1977 On that day the plaintiff filed objections to the award or in other words he made an application to set aside the award. Under these circumstances the question which we are required to consider is whether the plaintiffs application to set aside the award was barred by time. The first aspect of this contention is whether sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to an application for setting aside an award made under Arbitration Act 1940 A refer