IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioners' applications for condonation of delay and restoration of A.O.P., emphasizing the importance of diligence in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. C.R.P. No. 684 of 2024 arises out of an order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the petitioners’ application for condonation of delay in filing a petition to set aside the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the Trial Court and to restore the Arbitration Original Petition (A.O.P. No. 682 of 2016) filed by the petitioners.

2. C.M.A. No. 110 of 2024 arises out of an order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the Trial Court dismissing the appellants’ application for restoration of A.O.P. No. 682 of 2016, filed by the appellants under Order IX Rule 9 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The impugned order in the C.M.A. was passed consequent to the impugned order passed in the C.R.P.

3. The A.O.P. referred to above was filed by the petitioners/appellants for setting aside an Arbitral Award dated 28.09.2015 under Section 34 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The C.R.P. and the C.M.A. arise out of the 2 orders passed on the same date i.e. 18.12.2023 dismissing the petitioners’ applications for condonation of delay in filing a petition for setting aside the order dated 06.12.2021 and for restoration of the Arbitration Original Petition (Section 34 Application) to its original file.

4. A brief statement of the admitted facts is necessary for understanding the factual matrix relevant to these matters.

5. The respondent No. 2 in A.O.P. No. 682 of 2016 made an Arbitration Award dated 28.09.2015 in favour of the respondent No. 1 and against the petitioners amounting to a money decree for an amount of Rs.35,10,750/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from 07.11.2009 till the date of realization. The petitioners filed the A.O.P. under Section 34 of the 1996 Act for setting aside of the Award dated 28.09.2015. The A.O.P. could not be adjudicated during the Covid-19 pandemic period but was taken up for hearing by the Trial Court on 17.11.2021. On 17.11.2021, the Trial Court passed a conditional order wherein it was recorded that counsel for both the petitioners and the respondents were absent and the matter would be listed on 06.12.2021 for final hearing failing which the O.P. would be dismissed. On the returnable date i.e. 06.12.2021, the petitioners remained unrepresented and so was the respondent No. 1 (Award Holder). The Trial Court passed over the matter and called the matter again at 4:00 P.M. Recording that the petitioners were not represented in spite of the conditional order passed on 17.11.2021, the Trial Court dismissed the A.O.P. for default.

6. The respondent No. 1 filed an Execution Petition vide E.P. No. 2970 of 2021 with regard to the Award, on 31.12.2021 before the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. A notice was issued to the petitioner No. 1 in the said E.P. but it was returned as “Unclaimed. Return to Sender.”

7. On 28.04.2023, the petitioners filed I.A. No. 766 of 2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 478 days in filing of the application for setting aside the order of dismissal of the A.O.P. for default dated 06.12.2021. The petitioners also filed I.A. No. 767 of 2023 under Order IX Rule 9 of the C.P.C for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 06.12.2021 and for restoring the A.O.P. to its file and number. Both I.A. Nos. 766 and 767 of 2023 were dismissed by the Trial Court by the impugned orders dated 18.12.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present C.R.P. and the C.M.A on 21.02.2024 and 23.02.2024, respectively.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks to explain the delay in pursuing the A.O.P. on account of the Covid-19 pandemic. Counsel submits that the petitioners came to know of the conditional order dated 17.11.2021 and the order of dismissal of the A.O.P for default dated 06.12.2021 only in January, 2023 and filed the 2 I.As. for condonation of the delay and for setting aside the order of dismissal, on 28.04.2023. Counsel further submits that the petit