( 1. ) THE petitioner assails the order dated 5-4-2000 passed by the M. P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in reference Case No. 44/99 dismissing the application as barred by limitation.

( 2. ) THE petitioner/contractor was given a work for construction of Government Higher Secondary School building at Shamshabad. The date of completion of the work was 17-2-89, though the petitioner was allowed to complete the work by 11-5-90 by letter dated 30-4-90 of the Superintending Engineer. The contract was terminated on 23-3-90. The remaining work was given to other agency. Notices were served on 22-1-93 and on 16-6-94.

( 3. ) THE petitioner referred the quantified claims to the superintending Engineer on 25-7-94 and he rejected the reference on 15-1-99. The petitioner preferred the reference case before the Arbitration Tribunal on 15-3-99 and during the pendency of the reference case, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chief-Engineer on 14-6-99. No decision was taken by the Chief Engineer on the appeal. The Arbitration Tribunal has held that limitation came to end on 7-2-96, the reference was preferred before the Tribunal on 15-3-99. There was delay of more than three years. The reference case has been dismissed as barred by limitation, considering Section 7b (1) (a) and Section 7b (1) (b) of Madhya Pradesh madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam ). Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Arbitration Tribunal, the revision has been preferred by the contractor.

( 4. ) SHRI R. D. Hundikar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the superintending Engineer has rejected the reference on 151-99. The application filed before the Tribunal was within the period of one year from that date thus, it was within limitation. He has relied upon the Division Bench decision of this court in Ram Niwas Shukla Vs. State of M. P and another 2006 (4) MPLJ 34.

( 5. ) SHRI Sudesh Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that the petitioner has failed to take recourse of clause 29 of the agreement, thus it was not open for him to prefer claim petition before the Arbitration Tribunal beside that it was hopelessly barred by limitation. Once the period of limitation came to an end, it would not be revived by rendering a decision by the Superintending Engineer beyond the period of limitation i. e,15-1-99. He has also relied upon Section 9 of the limitation Act, 1963 to contend that once the limitation starts running, it cannot be checked. Thus, in the instant case, limitation came to an end, the fresh period of limitation would not be available, would not start on rendering of decision by Superintending Engineer.

( 6. ) FIRST, we deem it appropriate to consider Clause 29 of the agreement whether the petitioner has taken steps as per the agreement entered into between the parties which is necessary in order to maintain reference petition before the tribunal. The relevant portion of Clause 29 containing the Arbitration Clause is quoted below:

ARBIRATION CLAUSE clause 29-Except as otherwise provided in this contract all question and dispute relating to the meaning of the specifications and instruction hereinbefore mentioned and as to the thing whatsoever in any way rising out or relating to contract designs drawings specifications estimates concerning the works or the execution of failure to executive the some whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment thereof shall be referred to the Superintending engineer in writing for his decision within a period of 30 days of such occurrence, thereupon the superintending Engineer shall give his written instruction/or decision with on a period of 60 days of request. This period can be extended by mutual consent of the parties. Upon receipt of written instructions or decision, the parties shall promptly proceed without delay to comply such instructions or decision. I