POULOSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a contractor who executed some works in the Kallada Irrigation Project. Certain disputes which arose out of the contract was referred for arbitration to the Government Arbitrator for Engineering contracts. He entered on the reference on 26-6-1975. On 15-1-1976 the matter was partly heard and then adjourned to 2-3-1976 for further hearing. In the meanwhile, the arbitrator was transferred, and the matter came up for hearing before the Chief engineer (Arbitration ). THE petitioner did not attend the hearing on that date. THE Chief Engineer disposed of the matter without hearing the petitioner, and by letter dated 4-3-1976 asked the petitioner to produce stamp paper to write the award.

(2.) THE petitioner then filed O. P. (Arbitration) No. 7 of 1976 before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. That original petition was disposed of restraining the Chief Engineer (Arbitration) from proceeding with the arbitration. THE above order was challenged in revision before this Court, and this Court by its order dated 2-11-1978 allowed that revision and dismissed O. P. No. 7 of 1976. As the arbitrator did not resume the proceedings, the petitioner made an application on 10-10-1980 requesting the arbitrator to proceed with the matter. THE arbitrator by proceedings dated 1-12-1980 dismissed the above application of the petitioner, stating: "on examining the circumstances relating to this case I find that there has been delay of about 2 years, in approaching the arbitrator to pass the Award after the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court and that even the application for enlarging time is yet to be filed by the claimant. As one of the parties has not agreed to enlarge time it is not possible for me to proceed in the matter in the present circumstances. THE application to proceed with the Arbitration is therefore dismissed. " THEreupon, the petitioner filed O. P. (Arbitration) No. 39 of 1980 before the Sub Court under S. 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for enlarging the time for making the award. Respondents 1 and 2 in the objections filed in court , contended that the arbitration proceedings were finalised within the period of limitation, no acceptable reason was stated in the petition as to why the time should be extended, there was no bona fides in filing the petition and the petitioner was not entitled to exclude the time from 2-11-1978. THE Sub Court came to the conclusion that there was no acceptable explanation in the petition regarding the delay after 2-11-1978 and that the whole delay was of the making of the petitioner himself. Hence the court dismissed the application holding that no worthy reason was either alleged or proved qualifying the petitioner for enlargement of time. It is the above order that is challenged by the petitioner in this civil revision.

(3.) IN the result, the order impugned is set aside. There will be a direction to the court below to retake the petitioner's application on the file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Fresh orders are to be passed as expeditiously as possible and, at any rate, within three months of the receipt of this order by the court. The civil revision is allowed as above. No costs. . .