ANAS ABDUL KHADER Vs. ABDUL NASAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are respondents 1 and 2 in a proceeding filed under S.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which is presently pending before the District Court, Kozhikode.

(2.) The case was originally filed in the District Court, Kozhikode and it was later on found that in view of the intervention of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in the place of the erstwhile Arbitration Act, the case was filed in the wrong forum and that it had no jurisdiction. The order directing representation of the case before District Court reached this Court in C.R.P. No. 2232/99. It was found as per order dated 12.11.1999 that the order directing return was proper and correct. As regards the contention that the proceeding was not initiated in the sub court in good faith, it was observed that the question need not be considered in the revision and that if it is raised before the District Court when the proceedings are represented, that can be considered there. As per a subsequent order passed in the same proceeding in C. M. P. No. 5324/99 it was clarified that the aspect of good faith, if raised as above, will have to be considered unhampered by any of the observations contained in the aforesaid order of this Court. Subsequently, the question was, in fact, raised before the District Court in connection with the condonation of delay. As per the order impugned in the present revision, the District Court found that the prosecution of the case before the Sub Court was, in fact, done in good faith and that there was no question of any delay, in so far as the period from 10.3.1999 till 27.10.1999 is liable to be excluded while computing the period of limitation.

(3.) Sri. K. T. Sankaran, who argued the case of the petitioner, repeated his stand that the proceedings were initiated in the Sub Court with full knowledge that the proceedings were before the wrong forum and that in the circumstances, there was no question of any extension. According to him, there is total delay of 139 days involved in the presentation of the case before the District Court and the District Court erred in finding that the proceedings were within time.