SYAL INDUSTRIES Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER delay caused in filing application U/s 30/33 of Arbitration Act can be condoned u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act?, is the question arising for determination.

(2.) AFTER filing of the award notice was ordered to be issued on 20.7.2000. Respondents in their application for condonation of delay have stated "the applicants thus were never aware of the filing of the award in the court till a notice was received from the Registry of the Court. Application was filed for issuance of copy on 31.5.2001. " From the averments made in the application thus it can be assumed that notice of filing of the award was received by the respondents somewhere before 31.5.2001. Application u/s. 30/33 AA has admittedly been filed on 29.10.2001. Article 158 of 3rd Division of the Limitation Act prescribes 30 days period from the date of service of notice of filing of the award for filing applications under J&K Arbitration Act to set aside the award or to get the award remitted for reconsideration. Applicant -respondent herein thus admittedly have filed application u/s. 30/33 AA seeking setting aside of the award after expiry of 30 days. The delay caused in filing the said application is sought to be condoned u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 5 of the Limitation Act reads as follows: - - "5. Extension of period in certain cases -An appeal or an application for a review of a judgment or for leave to appeal or an application to set aside an order of dismissal of a suit for plaintiffs default or an application to set aside a decree passed ex -parte in an original suit or appeal or an application to bring the heirs of the deceased party on the record or an application to set aside an order of abatement of a suit or appeal or any other application to which this section may be made applicable by or under an enactment for the time being in force may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefore, when the appellant or applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. Explanation - - The fact the appellant or applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period of limitation may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section."

(3.) FROM the bare reading of the section it transpires that period of limitationunder section 5 can be enlarged only in cases of appeals,applications for review of the judgment or for leave to appeal or in an application to set aside an order of dismissal of a suit for plaintiffs default or in an application to set aside a decree passed ex -parte in an original suit or appeal, or in an application for bringing the heirs of the deceasedparty on the record or in application for setting aside an orderof abatement ofsuit orappeal and also to an application to which this section is made applicableby oran enactment for the time being in force.This section has no application to other applications.