B P SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order dated 27.7.1994 an award made by an arbitrator has been directed to be made a rule of the court as none of the parties had preferred any objection to the award though the period of limitation prescribed therefor, from the date of the service of the notice of filing of the award, had expired.

(2.) THESE applications have been filed on behalf of the respondent Union of India on 14.12.1994 whereby they have now (i) filed objections under Section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, (ii) sought for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the objections, (iii) sought for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 27.7.94 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, and (iv) also sought for stay of the execution.

(3.) NOTICE of 'filing of objections having been sent and served and time limit for filing objections having also expired without any objection against the award having been filed, the question of making an application under Order 9 Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code against a decree based on award, a situation like (iv) above does not arise. The question may arise what is the remedy of a party who was prevented by sufficient cause from making an application under Sections 16 or 30 read with Section 17 of The Act and the Court has proceeded to pass a decree in between. The Court having become functuous-officio may not be competent to entertain the objection petition even if accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Present one is not a case where such a situation has arisen. Would a party be rendered without a remedy? Possibly the only provision to which resort may be had is of a review under Order 47 Rule I of the CPC if the party can bring its case within the permissible grounds of review. '