STATE OF KERALA Vs. KUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Power of the court to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in public interest to avoid denial of substantial justice is one of the issues considered in this judgment. For deciding that issue, interpretation of the words 'sufficient cause' appearing in Section 5 of the Limitation Act, on the facts of each case assumes importance. Common order dismissing I.A.No. 1879 of 1997 to set aside the award passed in O.P. (Arb.) No. 19 of 1996 and I.A.No. 453 of 2005 to condone the delay in filing the above application are challenged in these proceedings. An award passed by the sole arbitrator was forwarded to the Court by letter dated 8-2-1996 and on getting notice, appellant-State appeared on 30-5-1996. Time was allowed for filing objection. Within the time allowed for filing the objection, State filed I.A.No. 1879 of 1997 on 29-3-1997 for setting aside the award. There was delay of 315 days in filing the petition for setting aside the award. When objections were raised on the ground of delay, the Sub Court condoned the delay in filing the petition for setting aside the award by order dated 9-12-1999, even without a formal petition for condoning the delay. It is not disputed that even without a formal petition the Court has got power to condone delay if there are valid and sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Even if an objection is filed incorporating the grounds for setting aside the award, it can be treated as a petition to set aside the award as held by the Apex Court in Madan Lal v. Sunderlal and Anr., . However, such petition should also be filed within 30 days of notice of passing award in view of the provisions of the Limitation Act. Article 119 (b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a period of limitation of 30 days for an application under Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside an award from the service of notice of filing the award. It is also well settled that the Court has the power to condone the delay in filing petition for sufficient reasons and Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable as held in Government of A.P. v. Durgaram Prasad, . The court suo motu condoned the delay in filing the appeal after hearing both sides. The Sub Court considered the matter and passed preliminary order wherein it was held as follows:

(2.) Revision application was filed against the above order as C.R.P.No. 31 of 2000. It was dismissed by this Court. Contractor filed review petition RP.No. 578 of 2001 and the Court remitted the matter for consideration whether sufficient grounds are there to condone the delay. The delay was 315 days. Again, the Sub Court condoned the delay. The Court observed as follows:

(3.) After remand, a formal application, I.A.No. 453 of 2005, for condoning the delay was filed. It is true that at the time of filing formal application, there was delay of 8 years and 252 days. While dismissing the petition by the impugned order, the Court below observed as follows: