GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. D POCHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition and appeal are filed against the common judgment passed on 23-1-1998 in O.S.No. 42 of 1993 and O.P. No. 121 of 1993 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. The Government is the petitioner/appellant in the revision petition as well as in the C.M.A.

(2.) The respondent is a contractor. He entered into an agreement on 3-3-1981 with the appellant herein for the work of special repairs to Allur and Jagityal Dharmapuri road from K.M. 0/0 to 13/3 in Karimnagar District. There is an arbitration clause in the agreement. Disputes and differences arose between the parties regarding execution of work. Thereupon, the contractor filed O.P.No. 216 of 1985 in the Civil Court for removal of designated arbitrators, on the ground that they failed to make award within the stipulated period of four months. He requested the Court to appoint another arbitrator. Thereupon, the Civil Court appointed Sri Mallikarjuna Rao, K. a retired Chief Engineer, as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties in respect of the agreement. The arbitrator appointed by the Court entered into arbitration. Both the parties submitted their claims and objections before the arbitrator. The arbitrator made an award dated 29-12-1992. He produced the award before the Court on 30-12-1992. On 19-4-1993 the contractor filed a civil suit in O.S.No. 42 of 1993 under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, (the Act for short) requesting the Court to make the award the rule of the Court. The trial Court issued summons in the said civil suit to the present appellant. Summons was served admittedly on the present appellant on 14-6-1993. Thereupon, under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act, the present appellant filed a petition requesting the Court to set aside the award dated 29-12-1992 in respect of Claim Nos. 1, 5 and 6 allowed by the arbitrator and confirm the award in respect of other claims 2,3,4 and 7 rejected by the arbitrator. This petition was filed on 25-8-1993. The office took an objection stating that the petition is barred by limitation. Thereupon, the appellant pleaded that the Court had not issued any notice regarding filing of the award and therefore, the petition is within time. Various reasons are mentioned in the petition as grounds to set aside the award dated 29-12-1992. The contractor respondent contested the application. Similarly, the appellant contested the Civil suit, O.S.No. 42 of 1993, filed by the Contractor. The trial Court tried the civil suit as well as the petition clubbing them together recorded common evidence and held that there are no reasons to set aside the award. Accordingly, the trial Court allowed the Civil suit making the award the rule of Court and dismissed the petition filed by the present appellant. Aggrieved by the common judgment passed by the trial Court the government preferred revision petition and appeal.

(3.) The appeal and revision petition are liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the petition filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act by the appellant is clearly barred by limitation. It is pertinent to point out that after the office of the trial Court took an objection that the petition filed by the Government is barred by limitation, the Government did not file any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act. Section 14 (2) of the Act lays down that after arbitrator produced the award, the court shall give a notice to the parties of filing of the award. Article 119 (b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes a period of 30 days as limitation for filing a petition to set aside the award or getting an award remitted for reconsideration. As per the said provision, the period of limitation begins to run from the date of service of notice of the filing of the award. It is contended on behalf of the Government that the Civil Court did not issue any notice as envisaged under Section 14 (2) of the Act and, therefore, the petition filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act is not barred by limitation. There is no dispute that the Civil Court did not issue any notice to the parties as required under Section 14 (2) of the Act. The Learned Government Pleader relied upon a judgment of Apex Court reported in Ch. Ramalingareddy v. Superintending Engineer and another. The facts of that case are that the award was made on 29-7-1983. The Arbitrator sent the award to the Court on 31-7-1983. The Court received it on 5-8-1983. The Court issued notice of the award. It was received by the respondents on 10-8-1983. The respondents filed the petition on 6-9-1983 challenging the award. It was contended by the appellant that their advocate informed the additional Government Pleader on 5-8-1983 in writing of the receipt of the award and as the petition was filed on 6-9-1983, it is barred by limitation. The Court found that the said notice was not served on the government pleader and held that the said date cannot be a starting point for limitation for filing petition to impugn the award. It was held that the petition was within the time as it was filed within 30 days from the date of service of notice given by the Court under Section 14(2) of the Act. In the present case notice under Section 14(2) of the Act was never issued. There is positive evidence to show that the Government had definite knowledge about production of the Award by the Arbitrator before the Court. In the case before the Supreme Court notice under Section 14(2) of the Act was served and further the Court found that earlier knowledge about production of Award imputed to the Government was not established. Therefore, in my considered opinion this decision has no application to the facts of this case.