P.N. Ravindran, J.

1. The appellants herein availed a loan from the sole respondent on 12.5.2009 for the purpose of purchasing a tractor bearing registration No. KL-40/B-9525. They defaulted repayment of the loan installments. The respondent financier thereupon invoked clause 17 A of the loan agreement and after giving notice to the appellants, nominated Sri. Thomas T. Varghese, Advocate of this court as the Arbitrator. The respondent also referred the dispute arising out of the agreement between the parties to the said Arbitrator. The Arbitrator entered on the reference and issued notice to the appellants herein by registered post acknowledgement due requiring them to be present in his chambers at 4.30 p.m. on 2.6.2010. It was stated in the said notice that if they fail to appear in person or through their authorised representatives, he will proceed ex-parte. The appellants herein entered appearance before the Arbitrator through counsel and filed vakalath on 2.6.2010. The proceedings before the Arbitrator was thereupon adjourned to 16.6.2010. On that day, the appellants filed their written statements and the consideration of the claim was adjourned to 7.7.2010. On that day, the appellants did not appear before the Arbitrator. The case was thereupon adjourned to 18.8.2010, later to 22.9.2010, 22.10.2010 and still later to 24.11.2010. On that day also the appellants did not appear. There was also no representation on their behalf. The Arbitrator did not however set the appellants ex parte . Instead, the Arbitrator directed the claimant to file his affidavit in lieu of chief examination and adjourned the case to 22.12.2010. The respondent/claimant did not however file a proof affidavit on that day. The case was thereupon adjourned to 20.1.2011, later to 17.3.2011 and still later to 21.3.2011. On that day, the claimant filed its proof affidavit. The appellants herein and their counsel were not present on the aforesaid dates also. However the appellants were not set ex parte . After the respondent/claimant filed its proof affidavit on 21.3.2011 the case was adjourned to 21.7.2011. On that day also, the appellants and their counsel were not present. The Arbitrator heard the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant on that day and passed an award on 11.8.2011, whereby he directed the appellants to jointly and severally pay to the respondent/claimant the sum of Rs. 8,27,607/- together with interest at 18% per annum from 28.12.2009 till realisation as also the sum of Rs. 6,070/- as costs.

2. A signed copy of the award was however not delivered to the appellants. The records disclose that though the Arbitrator had sent two registered postal articles to the appellants on 20.8.2011, they were returned with the endorsement "addressee left". After the award was passed, the respondent/claimant filed E.P. No. 75 of 2012 in the Court of the District Judge of Ernakulam to enforce the award. Notice was thereupon issued to the appellants. They received the notice on 30.5.2012 and thereafter applied for a copy of the award passed by the Arbitrator and it was received by them on 21.6.2012. Thereafter, on 9.7.2012 they filed O.P.(Arb.) No. 564 of 2012 under section34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) in the Court of the District Judge of Ernakulam praying that the award may be set aside. They contended that the Arbitrator has not complied with the principles of natural justice and had not given them full opportunity to present their case. Upon receipt of notice in O.P.(Arb.) No. 564 of 2012, the respondent/claimant entered appearance and filed a written objection contending inter alia that the application to set aside the award is barred by limitation. They also contended that though the appellants had entered appearance before the Arbitrator through counsel and filed a written statement, they did not appear thereafter and therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the