JUDGMENT

1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging impugned order dated 25.6.2019 passed by First Additional District Judge, Balaghat (MP) in MJC No.127/2017 by which application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed.

2. Learned Court below held that limitation for filing application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1996") shall be counted from date of passing of award dated 22.6.2017. Application filed for modification of award under section 33 of Act of 1996 will not have any bearing as said application was filed on merits of award and not on grounds under section 33(1)(a)(b). Application under section 34 ought to have been filed within period of three months i.e. by 22.9.2017 but no application was filed in said time frame. No application was filed for condonation of delay neither any reason for delay was given in application under section 34 of Act of 1996. In reply to application filed by non-applicant under Order 7 rule 11 of CPC, no reason explaining delay was mentioned. In view of aforesaid circumstances of the case, First Additional District Judge, Balaghat (MP) dismissed the application under section 34 of Act of 1996.

3. Learned counsel appearing for appellant submitted that appellant ought to have been given benefit of section 33 of Act of 1996. Running of limitation ought to have been considered from date of rejection of application under section 33 of the Act 1996 and not from date of passing of award. Learned Court below committed an error of law in not granting the said benefit to the appellant.

4. Per contra, counsel appearing for respondent submitted that application filed by the appellant under section 33 was dismissed and award was not modified, therefore, running of limitation is to be counted from date of passing of award. It is further submitted that appeal under section 37 of the Act 1996 is not maintainable as no decision was passed on merits and application has been dismissed on technical ground of limitation.

5. Heard the counsel for appellant as well as respondent.

6. Relevant provisions for consideration before this Court are as under:-

"33. Correction and interpretation of award; additional award-

(1) Within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, unless another period of time has been agreed upon by the parties-

(a) A party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to correct any computation errors, any clerical or typographical errors or any other errors of a similar nature occurring in the award;

(b) If so agreed by the parties, a party, with notice to the other party, may request the arbitral tribunal to give an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award.

(2) If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made under sub-section (1) to be justified, it shall make the correction or give the interpretation within thirty days from the receipt of the request and the interpretation shall form part of the arbitral award.

(3) The arbitral tribunal may correct any error of the type referred to in clause (a) of sub section (1), on its own initiative, within thirty days from the date of the arbitral award.

(4) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a party with notice to the other party, may request, within thirty days from the receipt of the arbitral award, the arbitral tribunal to make an additional arbitral award as to claims presented in the arbitral proceedings but omitted from the arbitral award.

(5) If the arbitral tribunal considers the request made under sub-section (4) to be justified, it shall make the additional arbitral award within sixty days from the receipt of such request.

(6) The arbitral tribunal may extend, if necessary, the period of time with in which it shall make a correction, give an interpretation or make an additional arbitral award under sub-section (2) or sub-section (5).

(7) Section 31 shall apply