SUBHASH BABBAR Vs. AJAY PATHIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that the term of the Arbitrator expired on June 12, 1990. An application was made by the respondent on March, 1991, for extension of the period. The application was still pending hence the Arbitrator gave his award dated March 29, 1991. Later on, by order dated April 15, 1991, the Court allowed the application for extension of time. This was challenged by the present petitioner by making an application. The said application was dismissed by the learned Additional Senior Subordinate Judge. Rohtak, by order dated April 15, 1991. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has filed this revision.

(2.) The present petition was originally filed under Article 227 of the Constitution on July 27, 1991, admittedly 7 days after the period for filing a revision petition expired. It was returned by the Registry to the petitioner on August 3, 1991, to be refiled as a revision petition instead of being a petition under Article 227. It was refiled as such within one week, which was given for the purpose. There was thus delay of 7 days in filing the present revision petition. The explanation for the delay is that under a bona fide impression, learned counsel for the petitioner was of the view that a petition under Article 227 was maintainable. For such a petition, there was no period of 90 days prescribed. Accordingly, the petition as originally filed was in time. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, 7 days delay is hereby condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(3.) Coming to the merits of the revision petition, it is plain that once the Court extended the time by order dated April 15, 1991, it related back to the date of the application, namely, March 5, 1991. If it were not construed in this way, it would mean that for the action or inaction of the Court from March 5, 1991, to April 15, 1991, the party would suffer. It is well settled law that the parties cannot be made to suffer for any action or inaction of the Court.