STATE OF HARYANA Vs. KRISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition directed against the judgment dated 30-11-2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, Rohtak dismissing the appeal of the petitioners in which the judgment and decree dated 3-5-1999 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak was challenged. The Additional Civil Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 3-5-1999 had dismissed the objections of the petitioners and made the award dated 28-2-1994 passed by the arbitrator as rule of the Court. The Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal by recording the following order :

(2.) Shri Naresh K. Joshi, learned State Counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that in view of provisions of Section 3 read with Section 28 and Clause 3 of the First Schedule of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for brevity, the Act) the arbitrator has lost its jurisdiction to announce the award after the expiry of period of 4 months. According to the learned counsel, the Arbitrator was appointed on 26-7-1993 and he entered on the reference on 29-9-1993. It has been pointed out that the arguments were concluded before the arbitrator on 23-12-1993 and the next date fixed was 30-12-1993 for announcement of the award. The case was further adjourned 28-2-1994 for announcing the award. The arbitrator announced the award on 28-2-1994. The learned counsel submitted that time prescribed under Section 3 read with Section 28 and Clause 3 of the Schedule I of the Act the period of 4 months had exceeded and the award could not be announced by the Arbitrator and, therefore, the award is without jurisdiction. He has further argued that the parties have not expressly consented for extension of time limit. According to the learned counsel, there is no participation by the parties after the arguments were concluded on 23-12-1993 and , therefore, it cannot be concluded that the parties have given consent impliedly. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Hardayal, AIR 1985 SC 920.

(3.) In order to analyse the contention of the learned counsel, it is appropriate to make a reference to the provisions of Section 3, clause 3 of Schedule I and Section 28 of the Act, which read as under :