K. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY S/O SHRI SHIVANARAYANA REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER HEMAVATHI CANAL DIVISION, YEDIYUR NOW TAKEN OVER BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD. HEMAVATHI CANAL DIVIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION is by respondent No.1 in A.C.No.2/2006 questioning the rejection his application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC and r/w. Rule 4(b) of the High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001.

(2.) IN support of the application and against the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent herein, who Is the State of Karnataka filed petition invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 questioning the award in an arbitral proceedings passed on 28.10.2005. Under the provisions of Section 34, the period to question the award is three months. The Court will have power to condone delay for thirty days. He submits that the award passed on 28.10.2005 was served on the respondent No.1/petitioner on 29.10.2005 and the period of limitation stars running and has to be reckoned from the very next date i.e., 30.10.2005. The time to approach the Court will expire on 29.01.2006. It is submitted that the petition was filed on 28.02.2006 which is belated by 3 days. It is submitted that petitioner has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in presenting the petition under Section 34 of the Act which provision is not applicable. Learned counsel submits statutorily the period of limitation is fixed and also specifies the discretionary power of the Court to condone the delay only upto thirty days. Therefore, the request for condonation must be only in terms of Section 34 and not under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In other words, it is submitted that Court has no power to condone the delay beyond thirty days and as the petition is filed after 33 days, the petition was barred by law and should have been rejected.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner referring to High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings before the Courts) Rules, 2001 brings to my notice that by that rule, all arbitral proceedings particularly covered under Section 14 to 34 shall be treated as a suit and provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply. Therefore, the petition has to be treated as a suit and as Code of Civil Procedure is made applicable, Order VII Rule 11 would be applicable. This contention is upheld infavour of the petitioner.