Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - C.M. No. 6387-C-II of 2012

Allowed as prayed for.

C.M. No. 6388-C-II of 2012 :

For reasons mentioned in the application, which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 03 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main Case :

2. Contractor Ravinder Kumar has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing orders of both the courts below.

3. Respondent no.1 – Executive Engineer awarded contract to the petitioner-Contractor. Disputes arose between the parties. The disputes were referred to Arbitrator – respondent no.2 as per arbitration clause in the agreement. Respondent no.1 – Executive Engineer made claim of Rs.6,86,978.66 before the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator, vide Award dated 15.02.1989, awarded Rs.6,80,087.66 in favour of Executive Engineer, payable by the Contractor.

4. Executive Engineer filed application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (in short – the Act) for making the Award as ‘Rule of the Court’. The Contractor did not appear despite service and accordingly, the Award was made ‘Rule of the Court’ vide ex-parte order dated 06.05.1991 and decree was passed accordingly. However, on application moved on 18.05.1991 by the Contractor, the ex-parte order and decree were set aside vide order dated 26.11.1991.

5. The Contractor filed objection petition-cum-reply on 21.12.1992 assailing the Award. It was pleaded that the Arbitrator misconducted himself and the proceedings. The Arbitrator did not afford proper opportunity of hearing to the objector nor the objector was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses of the Executive Engineer.

6. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, vide impugned order dated 12.02.2008 (Annexure P-2), dismissed the objections filed by the Contractor and allowed the application filed by Executive Engineer under Sections 14 and 17 of the Act and made the Award ‘Rule of the Court’ and passed decree accordingly. First appeal preferred by the Contractor has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2011 (Annexure P-4). Feeling aggrieved, Contractor has filed this revision petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

8. At the outset, it has to be noticed that the objection petition filed by the Contractor was hopelessly barred by limitation. Initially, vide ex-parte order dated 06.05.1991, the Award was made ‘Rule of the Court’, but on application of Contractor, the said ex-parte order was set aside vide order dated 26.11.1991. However, the Contractor filed objections on 21.12.1992 i.e. more than a year thereafter. According to Article 119 (b) of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation period for filing the objection petition for setting aside of Award was 30 days from the date of service of notice of the filing of the Award. The said limitation period commenced on 26.11.1991, when ex-parte order was set aside. In fact, Contractor got notice of filing of Award on or before 18.05.1991, when he filed application for setting aside ex-parte order dated 06.05.1991. However, the Contractor possibly could not file objections against the Award till ex-parte order dated 06.05.1991 was set aside. The said ex-parte order was set aside on 26.11.1991 and consequently, the Contractor could file objections within 30 days thereof, but he filed objections more than a year thereafter and thus, the objections were hopelessly barred by limitation. No application for condonation of delay in filing the objections was moved along with the objection petition. However, after 15 years, the Contractor moved application on 17.09.2007 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of the aforesaid delay of almost one year. However, even in the said application, no ground whatsoever was pleaded for condonation of the said long delay. Thus, objections preferred by the objector Contractor were hopelessly ba