CHHOTELAL Vs. JAMNADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under section 30 of the Arbitration Act from an order disallowing objections filed by the non-petitioner Chhotelal (appellant ). A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri Patankar learned counsel for the respondent Jaraunadas that the appeal is barred by time.

(2.) MATERIAL facts are that Jamuna Das made a petition under section 14 of the arbitration Act to the District Judge, Gwalior, for filing of an award. Notice of this petition was sent to the non-petitioner Chhotelal to appear on 19-3-1953. On the last mentioned date the non-petitioner appeared and filed certain objections. The award dated 26-12-1952 was also filed on that very day as is clear from the proceedings recorded by the Trial Judge. The counsel for the non-petitioner has signed below the order passed by the trial Judge on 19-3-1953. However, it was on 5-10-1953 that the non-applicant filed his objections to the award. These objections were dismissed as barred by time by the trial Judge on 9-2-1959. It is against this order that the non-petitioner filed this appeal on 27-6-1960. Obviously enough, the appeal is barred by time.

(3.) IN our opinion the correct law was laid down in Ram Rup v. Naik Ram, AIR 1926 all 252. It is well established that when an appeal is filed in a wrong Court and is therefore taker) back, it must be presented to the proper Court as speedily as possible. There is no reason for applying a different rule to a case where prior to the presentation of an appeal, the appellant was engaged unsuccessfully in review proceedings. As soon as the review is rejected, the appeal must be filed without delay and if there is any delay it must be duly accounted for. When extension of limitation is prayed for under section 5 on a ground analogous to that provided under Section 14, it is imperative that the party asking for the indulgence must explain the delay which has taken place between the termination of the period sought to be excluded and the presentation of the appeal.