The court has a wide discretion to extend time under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, but this discretion must be exercised judiciously and with care, and the court will not exercise its discretion in favor of a party who has been negligent or guilty of dilatory tactics.

ORDER : The petitioner-company is a manufacturer of steel having its factory at Rourkela in the State of Orissa. The petitioner entered into a contract with the opposite party for execution of certain works at Rourkela. Dispute and differences arose amongst the parties out of the execution of the said contract. Under the terms of the agreement the same was referred to the sole arbitrator Sri S. C. Banerji, the then Deputy Chief Engineer of the petitioner-company in 1965. The opposite party unnecessarily protracted the arbitration proceedings and finally on 30th of October 1966 the arbitrator passed the following order (Ext. 1).

"Present enlargement of time expires on 20-11-1966. It is apparent from the proceedings that it will not be possible to complete the proceedings and file the Award within this time. The claimants are therefore directed to apply for enlargement of time from the competent court.

(S. C. Banerjea)

Sole Arbitrator".

2. The opposite party, however, filed an application for extension of time under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) in the court of the Subordinate Judge. Sundargarh, only on 21-8-1969. Ground Nos. 4 and 5 taken in that application were as follows :

"4. That the petitioner had been to Punjab, his native place, and was ill for a very long time for which he could not apply for extension of time earlier.

5. That the petitioner cannot proceed with the case or arbitration unless time is further extended for making the award for a period of another four months."

3. The petitioner filed objection on 19-1-1970. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the objection runs thus :

"3. That the allegations made in paras 4 and 5 of the petition are false and hence denied. The allegations that the petitioner had been to Punjab and fell ill and hence could not apply for extension of time are false and hence denied.

4. That the petitioner is deliberately negligent and/or being conscious of his frivolous claim did not apply for time purposely. Sri. S. C. Banerjee has retired long since from service of the opposite party and may not now be available for arbitration. Sri Banerjee retired from service with effect from 30th June, 1966, and the petitioner being conscious of the same did not deliberately apply for extension."

4. Amarnath Sharma (opposite party) examined himself as P. W. 1. No witness was examined by the petitioner. The substantive part of the learned Subordinate Judge's finding is in paragraph 4 of his judgment dated 11-7-70.

"No doubt the petitioner's story of illness does not find corroboration and the petitioner has not taken necessary pains to examine a doctor or anybody of Punjab to corroborate him. In course of cross-examination the petitioner has made a statement to the effect that year before last i. e. in 1968 he had taken up contract work at Burla. Much was argued by the learned counsel for the O. P. relying on his statement. But in my view the above statement may not mean that the petitioner was then residing at Burla and as such could have taken steps for extension of time in 1968. In above premises I do not find any cogent reason to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the petitioner that he was in fact ill in Punjab for which reason he could not apply earlier."

5. On the aforesaid conclusion the learned Subordinate Judge extended time by four months from that date. The civil revision has been filed against the order extending time.

6. The only evidence in the case on the basis of which the question of extension of time would be considered is the deposition of the opposite party (P. W. 1).

7. P. W. 1 deposed on 11-7-1970. In paragraph 9 of his deposition he stated "Year before last I had taken up contract work at Burla". Thus, on his own case P. W. 1 had contract work at Burla in 1968. In the absence of any clarificatory statement on his behalf that he was getting the contract done through others though he was absent in Punjab the irresistible inference is that opposite party was pre