1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by Additional district Judge, Chandigarh dated 12-9-2008 on an application filed under Sec.5 of limitation Act, 1963 (for short the Act) for condonation of delay of 839 days in filing the application under Sec.34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short act of 1996) against the award of arbitrator dated 3-6-2005.

2. The dispute between the parties was referred to Sole Arbitrator who gave his award dated 3-5-2005. The appellant filed a Civil Suit No.292 dated 18-5-2002 titled as M/s. Rajpura Gas House V/s. M/s. Indian oil Corporation Limited for mandatory injunction to direct the respondents to forthwith restore distributorship of Pawan kumar, sole proprietor of M/s. Rajpura Gas house, Rajpura on the ground that reference covering all the dispute between the parties directly and substantially in issue have been finally decided by the Arbitrator by his impugned award dated 3-5-2005 which has become enforceable under the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short cpc) in the same manner as if it were a final decree of the Court. In the suit, as many as six issues were framed, which are reproduced as under :

3. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 2-8-2006 dismissed the suit on issue No.1 on the ground that plaintiff is not entitled for mandatory injunction. However, while deciding issues Nos.2 and 3, it was held that suit of the plaintiff is maintainable and has got locus standi to file the suit. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant filed first appeal under Sec.96 of CPC on 29-8-2006. While the appeal was pending, the appellant filed a writ petition bearing CWP no.11942 of 2007 titled as M/s. Rajpura gas House V/s. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation on 4-8-2007 before this Court in which following prayer was made :

a) summon the records of the case; b) quashing the public notice dated 18-9-2006 (Annexure P-8) whereby the LPG distributorship at Rajpura Location in the physically handicapped category has been advertised by showing the same to have been terminated, though the termination of the gas Agency stands declared null and void by the Sole Arbitrator vide Award dated 3-5-2005 and for a direction to the authorities to restore the dealership in the favour of the petitioner with all consequential benefits flowing therefrom; c) grant any other relief which this honble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case; d) dispense with the service of advanced notices on the respondents; e) award costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner; f) exempt the filing of the certified copies of the Annexures; it is still further respectfully prayed that the respondent-Corporation be restrained from allotting the Distributorship at Rajpura in pursuance to the public notice dated 18-9-2006 (Annexure P-8) during the pendency of the present petition. "

4. However, the said writ petition was disposed of on 6-8-2007. In the meanwhile the appellant pursued his appeal before the civil Court, which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 7-11-2007 and thereafter objections under Sec.34 of the Act of 1996 were filed along with application under Sec.5 of the Act for considering objections under Sec.34 of the Act of 1996 after condoning delay of 839 days in its filing. The said application has been rejected by the Court below vide impugned order dated 12-9-2008 against which the present appeal has been filed.

5. Mr. Amit Jhanji, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned trial court has observed in the impugned order that Sec.5 of the Act is not applicable as the limitation of three months as provided in Sec.34 (3) of the Act of 1996 could only be extended for 30 days. However, the learned trial Court has observed that in view of decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa V/s. M/s. Western Builders 2006 (3) RCR (Civil) 475 : AIR 2006 SC 2525. Provisions of Sec.14 of the Act are