ORDER :

Hima Kohli, J.

1. This order shall decide the objection raised by the Registry as to the maintainability of the present petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') invoking the revisional/supervisory powers of the High Court to assail the order dated 16.12.2020, passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge. City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.O.P. No. 111 of 2019 filed by the respondent/contractor under Section 29-A (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'A & C Act') praying inter alia for extension of the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal constituted to resolve the disputes between the parties. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has allowed the application moved by the respondent/contractor and extended the mandate of the Arbitral Tribunal which was to expire on 12.08.2019, till 15.06.2021 i.e., for a period of six months, to enable it to complete the proceedings.

2. On receiving the file of the present revision petition, the Registry had returned the same raising the following objections:-

"It is to be clarified as to how this CRP SR is entertain able against the order dated 16-12-2020 passed in C.O.P. No. 111 of 2019 on the file of the Judge, Commercial Court-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad."

3. The said objection was replied to by learned counsel for the petitioner in the following words:-

"Since the order under Section 29-A (5) is not appealable under Section 37 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, CRP alone is maintainable. Hence complied."

4. With the aforesaid reply, the present petition has been placed before us for appropriate orders. In view of the aforesaid objection raised by the Registry, we had requested Mr. P. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, to address this court on the maintainability of the present petition under Section 115 of the CPC.

5. Learned counsel has urged] that since no appeal against an order passed under Section 29A(5) of the A & C Act is provided for under Section 37 of the A & C Act, a revision petition has been preferred being an equally alternative efficacious remedy. He has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kandla Export Corporation and another v. OCI Corporation and another, reported as (2018) 14 SCC 715 in support of his submission.

6. Before considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to certain relevant provisions of the A & C Act.

7. Section 5 of the A & C Act reads as follows:-

"5. Extent of Judicial Intervention:-

Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part."

8. Section 29A deals with the time limit for making an arbitral award. Sub-sections (4), (5) and (9) of the said Section that are relevant for the instant case, are extracted below:-

"29A. Time limit for arbitral award:-

(4) If the award is not made within the period specified in sub-section (1) or the extended period specified under sub-section (3), the mandate of the arbitrators shall terminate unless the Court has, either prior to or after the expiry of the period so specified, extended the period;

Provided that while extending the period under this sub-section, if the Court finds that the proceedings have been delayed for the reasons attributable to the arbitral tribunal, then, it may order reduction of fees of arbitrators by not exceeding five per cent for each month of such delay.

(5) The extension of period referred to in sub-section (4) may be on the application of any of the parties and may be granted only for sufficient cause and on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Court.

(9) An application filed under sub-section (5) shall be disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to dispose of the matter within a period of sixty days from th