The applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to revisions under the BPWCDA Act, 2008 is upheld, necessitating clarity on limitation questions through a larger bench.

ORDER

16 25-08-2025

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and respondents.

2. All these revision applications have been filed against the different Awards, passed by the Bihar Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal in different Reference Cases, along with the interlocutory applications for condonation of delay.

3. These civil revision applications are barred by limitation inasmuch it has been filed after more than ten months from the date of the Award. The period of limitation, under the Limitation Act, 1963 , is of three months for filing of civil revision application against an Award. The Act, however, does not prescribe any upper limit within which the civil revision application must be filed. The Limitation Act is, thus, being claimed to be applicable to the provisions of Bihar Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred as ‘BPWCDA Act’).

4. Learned counsels submitted that the question of applicability of the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the proceeding under Section 34 Clause 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 . It is further submitted that the Act of 2008 shall follow the principle of . It is also submitted that there are contradicted view of co-ordinate benches of this Court in similar matter wherein Civil Revision No. 9 of 2017 vide order dated 05.04.2023, co-ordinate bench of this Court dealing with similar issue held that:

“13. Under the provision of Section 13 of the Act of 2008, revision is provided to High Court Suo moto at any time or on an application made to it within three months from the date on which the Award is made. The High Court under the provision of Section 13 (1) may make such order in the case as it thinks fit. There is no prescribed period for Suo moto exercise of revisional jurisdiction, however, an aggrieved party made by the Award or interim Award may file the revision. Under Section 13 (1) nowhere expressly exclude the applicability of provisions of the limitation Act, 1963. The provisions of Section 5 are applicable to Section 13 as they are not expressly excluded by the provisions under the Act of 2008. Because of the scheme of the Act, it cannot be inferred that by implication, the provisions of of the Limitation Act, 1963 are excluded. Provisions contained in Section 29 (2) of the would be extracted as there is no express exclusion or implication, in view of the provision of the Act of 2008. Moreover, Section 13 (2) of the Act of 2008 for the purpose of exercising its power of revision under this Section, the High Court shall have the same power as it has, and as far as it may be, follow the same procedure as it follows, under the Civil Procedure code while exercising its power of revision under Section 115 of the Code and for that purpose the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Court Subordinate to it.

16. In view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and submissions made by the parties, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to the revisional power of the High Court under Section 13 of the act of 2018.”

4.i. Further, in Civil Revision No. 84 of 2018 vide order dated 15.04.2024, another co-ordinate bench of this Court in similar case (2024 (2) PLJR (496)) held that:

“16. Though the limitation for preferring a revision application under section 13 of the Act of 2008 is three months, in view of the provisions of section 8 of the Act of 2008 read with proviso to section 34(3) of the Act of 1996, the delay in filing of the revision application may be condoned by the Court and the application for setting aside the award entertained up to a further period of 30 days, but n