VISHAMBHAR SHARMA Vs. RAJASTHAN CO-OPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 115 of CPC challenging the order dated 07.02.2004 passed by the District Judge, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the court below") in arbitration application No.84/2003, whereby the court below has dismissed the application of the petitioner for making the award dated 22.11.1995 a Rule of the court, under the provisions contained in the Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1940").

(2.) It appears that the case of the petitioner before the court below was that an award dated 22.11.1995 came to be passed by the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings filed between the petitioner and the respondent. Though no notice of the said award, as required under Section 14 of the Act of 1940 was given to the petitioner, the arbitrator had given the award itself to the petitioner. It appears that the said award thereafter was not filed by the petitioner in the court for making it a Rule of the Court and in the meanwhile the new Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1996") came into force on 25.01.1996. The petitioner probably under the mis-conception of law filed an application for execution of the said award under the provisions contained in the new Act of 1996 on 28.01.1998. The respondent therefore raised the objections with regard to the maintainability of the said application contending that the provisions of Act of 1940 would be applicable. The petitioner therefore withdrew the said application on 16.01.2003 and filed another application being No.84/2003 on 15.02.2003, before the court below for making the said award dated 22.11.1995, a Rule of the Court. The court below dismissed the said application vide the impugned order dated 07.02.2004 by holding that the said application was barred by law of Limitation. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the petition invoking section 115 of CPC.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. S.K. Gupta for the petitioner that the petitioner was under the bonafide impression that after the new Act of 1996 having come into force, the award in question was not required to be made Rule of the Court and was required to be executed under the New Act. However, the objections having been raised by the respondent, the said application under the new Act was withdrawn by the petitioner and subsequently the application under the old Act was filed for making the award Rule of the Court. According to Mr. Gupta, the court below had wrongly appreciated the provisions contained under Article 119(a) of the Limitation Act for holding that the petitioner was required to make application within 30 days of the receipt of the notice of the award. Pressing into service, the provisions contained in Article 137 of the Limitation Act, he has submitted that there being no period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act for making any application for making the award a Rule of the Court, the petitioner was required to make the application within three years from the date of accrual of his right to apply as per Article 137. He also submitted that the ratio of the decision in case of Parasramka Commercial Company vs. Union of India, 1969 2 SCC 694, had no application to the facts of the case and the same has been wrongly relied upon by the court below. Learned counsel has relied upon on the decision of Allahabad High Court in case of Hazi Rahmetulla v. Chaudhari Vidya Bhusan, 1963 AIR(All) 602 and decision of this Court in case of Smt. Hoora & Ors. v. Abdul Karim, 1970 AIR(Raj) 22 in support of his submissions. Per contra the learned counsel Mr. G.P. Sharma for the respondent, while supporting the impugned order passed by the court below, submitted that no interference by this Court is called for, in the order which is just and legal, passed by the court below. Mr. Sharma also submitted that the revision petition itself is not maintainable.