1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Award dated 8th December, 2013 rendered by the sole Arbitrator appointed by this Court was made subject-matter of challenge in Miscellaneous Case No. 08 of 2014 before learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. -I, Ranchi by the petitioner-State of Jharkhand and its official. Claimant/respondent herein had raised a dispute under different Heads in respect of Agreement No. JHWB-0502 dated 20th December, 2005 for construction and maintenance of rural road from REO Road to Raksha; Baniyari More to Baniyari and Manthakeso More to Mathakeso in Saraiyahat Block in the district of Dumka. After contest Award was delivered by the sole Arbitrator holding that State of Jharkhand is liable to pay under different Heads for a total amount of Rs.43,46,749.73 Paise from 1.1.2010. Award was received by the parties on the same date i.e., 8th December, 2013. Application under Section 34 was filled before learned Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. -I, Ranchi on 26th March, 2014 i.e., beyond 3 months period stipulated under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, but before expiry of further 30 days period therefrom. In effect, it was filled within 120 days. The application suffered from several defects which were cured before the matter was taken up on 30th January, 2017 by learned Court when the order impugned was passed.

3. Applicant/petitioner herein filed a petition for condonation of delay of 17 days beyond 90 days period in preferring the application on 1st September, 2014 invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Another application for condonation of delay also under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on 27th January, 2015. Section 34 application and two limitation petitions are part of the affidavit containing preliminary objection filed herein on behalf of respondent/ claimant on 11th April, 2018. Learned Civil Judge considered the prayer for condonation of delay as also certain defects which were pointed out by Shristedar earlier and observed that filing of subsequent application for condonation of 90 days delay and the defective affidavit outside the Court premises showed non-seriousness of the State with regard to the present Award. Learned Court did not stop at that but ventured to enter into the merits of the challenge of the Award as well. It referred to Section 34 and the grounds provided under Section 34 2 (b) (i) and also went on to observe that the applicant had taken a ground which was with regard to the mental process in interpretation of evidence of the learned arbitrator which cannot be seen by the Court because it is not a Court of appeal of Arbitrator. Sufficiency of evidence cannot be proved in application under Section 34 to nullify the Award. Miscellaneous Application was dismissed both with observation in relation to merits of the challenge and delay in preferring the application. Learned Court while dismissing the Miscellaneous Application held as under :

“Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, it is found by this Court that no public policy is being affected by the award which has been passed by the learned arbitrator on 08.12.2013 in arbitration application case No.31/09. Therefore, it is found and held that the objector have got no substantial ground for admission of the application. The petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not worth acceptance in view of the established provision of law and therefore, application filed by the applicants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the arbitration award dated 08.12.2013 failed and not admitted and the Misc. case stands dismissed.”

4. Rival arguments have been made by learned counsel for the parties to question the impugned order and in support thereof. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that learned Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in rendering a composite order both on the grounds of delay and on the merits of the challen