K.K. Ushaj.

When the appeal came up for admission, we heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. The appeal is against the order passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P. (Art.)No.196 of 1995. The petition was filed for passing a decree in terms of the award/ The petitioner contended that since the objection was filed by the respondent beyond 30 days after acceptance of notice from the Court, the objection cannot be treated as a petition to set aside the award.

2. The trial court took the view that S.5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the p roceedings under the Arbitration Act and therefore the objection filed beyond of 30 days cannot be looked into. In coming to the above conclusion trial court placed reliance on a Bench decision of this court in State of Kerala v.Sivan Pillai, 1997 (1) KLT 556. We are afraid that the trial court has committed an error in holding that S.5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the provisions of the Arbitration Act. The Bench decision relied on by the trial court was found as not Good law by a Full Bench of this Court in its judgement dated 31.3.1998 in