P.K. Lohra, J.

The applicant-appellant has laid this review application under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'CPC') seeking review of judgment dated 11th August, 2014, rendered in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 647 of 2014. By the judgment under review, appeal of the applicant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'Act') is rejected after examining the matter on merits in absence of counsel.

2. The appeal is filed by the applicant to challenge the order dated 17.02.2014 passed by Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.1, Udaipur on its application under Section 34 of the Act for setting aside arbitral award dated 21st of November, 2006. The learned Addl. District Judge rejected application of the applicant for setting aside arbitral award on the ground of limitation by treating it to be time barred. In the judgment under review, matter is examined threadbare and, while relying on some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, found that in an application under Section 34 of the Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable.

3. Precisely, for seeking review of the judgment, applicant has taken shelter of Section 31(5) of the Act which envisages delivery of signed copy of arbitral award to each party and it is contended that as the signed copy was not delivered to the applicant, limitation has not reckoned. While laying emphasis on Section 31(5) of the Act, it is urged in the review application that invocation of Section 34 (3) of the Act in the instant case does not arise and as this aspect has not been examined by the Court, judgment is liable to be reviewed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors [(2005) 4 SCC 239]. In this verdict, there was a delay of 27 days and therefore Hon'ble Apex Court while taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case condoned the delay of 27 days. In yet another judgment, on which the learned counsel for the applicant has relied, is the case of National Projects Construction Corporation Limited v. Bundela Bandhu Construction Company, 2007 (2) Arb.LR 239 (Delhi) (DB), wherein Division Bench of Delhi High Court has held that in want of delivery of copy of arbitral award by the sole arbitrator question of delay has not arisen and accordingly proceeded to set aside the order under Section 34 of the Act. It goes without saying that before the sole arbitrator applicant was represented by its counsel, who was absent at the time of passing of the arbitral award as he was absent at the time of hearing of the appeal also. The learned Addl. District Judge has considered this aspect of the matter and rejected application of the applicant under Section 34 by observing that applicant remained dormant for almost 8 months from the date of passing of the arbitral award and has not made any endeavour to inquire about the arbitral proceedings or for obtaining copy of the arbitral award. While feeling satisfied with the aforesaid finding of the learned Addl. District Judge, the judgment impugned is rendered by this Court dismissing the appeal.

4. In totality, in the considered opinion of this Court, the so called mistake or error pointed out by the applicant is not an error or mistake apparent on the face of record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. The whole endeavour of the applicant is to rehear and thrash out the matter on merits de-novo, which is beyond the scope of review. One more redeeming fact is that when the appeal was called out for hearing, neither the applicant nor its counsel was present to render assistance to the Court and therefore while examining the matter at its own, the judgment under review was passed. Therefore, it is not in fitness of things to grant indulgence to the applicant for reviewing the judgment. Hon'ble Apex Court, while examining the nature