ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. By this common judgment, I shall be disposing of Civil Revision No.4934 of 2000 and Regular Second Appeal No.4769 of 2012.

FACTS:-

2. Chhotu Ram was allotted a plot No.952, Sector-8, Panchkula by Haryana Urban Development Authority vide allotment letter dated 29.04.1980. He entered into an agreement to sell with regard to the aforesaid property with Sh. Hem Raj Jain on 17.05.1980. On that day, Chhotu Ram executed an agreement to sell, a general power of attorney duly registered with the Sub-Registrar and a Will in favour of Sh. Hem Raj Jain. He disputes the written agreement to sell. However, he admits that there was an oral agreement to sell and he received payment of `9489.95 in cash and Rs. 7741/- by way of bank draft. It is further admitted that remaining amount was to be paid by Hem Raj to Haryana Urban Development Authority directly.

3. The possession of the plot was also handed over to Hem Raj Jain.

4. Chhotu Ram become dishonest and cancelled the Will as well as general power of attorney on 21.10.1980.

5. The agreement to sell provided for dispute resolution through sole Arbitrator Sh. Hans Raj Bansal. Hem Raj Jain requested the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute. Sh. Hans Raj Bansal entered into a reference and issued notices to Chhotu Ram. However, Chhotu Ram could not be served although number of attempts were made. Ultimately, notices were got published in two newspapers-one English Daily and second Hindi newspaper directing Chhotu Ram to appear on 06.03.1982. Apart from that, the Arbitrator also sent notices through registered A.D. and UPC. The registered letter was received back with the remark “refused returned to addressee”.

6. Since, Chhotu Ram did not appear, therefore, the Arbitrator proceeded ex parte against him. During the arbitration proceedings, attesting witness of the agreement to sell namely Baldev Singh was examined. After noticing the facts and the evidence produced, the Arbitrator passed an award. The relevant part of the award is extracted as under:-

“11. Relief:-The irrevokable power of attorney Ex.C3 executed by Sh. Chhotu Ram in favour of Sh. Hem Raj Claimant, which was revoked illegally by Shri Chhotu Ram by his letter dt. 13.5.81, is hereby revived.

(ii) That the transfer which is made by Sh. Chhotu Ram in favour of his real brother, of plot in dispute is declared illegal and inoperative and is hereby cancelled. The original agreement to sell Ex.C1 is revived.

(iii) It is also declared that the claimant Sh. Hem Raj is rightfully in actual physical possession of plot No.952, Sector 8, Panchkula. It is further ordered that Sh. Chhotu Ram should make all arrangements to transfer the plot in dispute in favour of Sh. Hem Raj Jain.”

7. Initially, Hem Raj Jain filed an application under Section 14(2) read with Section 17 of the Indian Arbitration Act before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chandigarh. However, the same was rejected on the ground that the Court at Chandigarh does not have territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, Hem Raj Jain moved an application before the Subordinate Judge, Ambala for making the award as Rule of the Court. Before the Subordinate Judge, the Arbitrator also filed an application for making the award a Rule of the Court. During the proceedings before the Subordinate Judge, Ambala, Chhotu Ram was summoned and he filed objections praying that the award is liable to be set aside under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Execution of the agreement to sell was disputed. It was further disclosed that Chhotu Ram has transferred the plot in favour of his brother Prem Chand after getting permission from the authorities.

8. The objections filed by Chhotu Ram were found to be beyond the prescribed time as per Article 119 of the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act. It was noticed that the objections have been filed after more than one year from the date the notice was served upon the Objector informing him about filing of the award. It may be notic