Sri K. Lakshminarayana Reddy vs Government of Karnataka

Jawad Rahim

Revision is by respondent No.1 in A.C.No.2/2006 questioning the rejection his application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC and r/w. Rule 4(b) of the High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings Before the Courts) Rules, 2001.

In support of the application and against the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent herein, who Is the State of Karnataka filed petition invoking Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 questioning the award in an arbitral proceedings passed on 28.10.2005. Under the provisions of Section 34, the period to question the award is three months. The Court will have power to condone delay for thirty days. He submits that the award passed on 28.10.2005 was served on the respondent No.1/petitioner on 29.10.2005 and the period of limitation stars running and has to be reckoned from the very next date i.e., 30.10.2005. The time to approach the Court will expire on 29.01.2006. It is submitted that the petition was filed on 28.02.2006 which is belated by 3 days. It is submitted that petitioner has filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in presenting the petition u/s 34 of the Act which provision is not applicable. Learned counsel submits statutorily the period of limitation is fixed and also specifies the discretionary power of the Court to condone the delay only upto thirty days. Therefore, the request for condonation must be only in terms of Section 34 and not u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. In other words, it is submitted that Court has no power to condone the delay beyond thirty days and as the petition is filed after 33 days, the petition was barred by law and should have been rejected.

Learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner would counter all these contentions mentioning that the award was passed no doubt on 28.10.2005 which was received on 29.10.2005 and the period of limitation has to be reckoned from 30.10.2005 which ends on 29.01.2006. He submits that petition has been filed on 28.02.2006 i.e., within 30 days from the date ending three months specified by Section 34 of the Act. Since on 29th day the petition has been filed, the Court has power to condone the delay upto 30 days. He submits his application is still pending consideration and therefore, whether the Court would condone the delay or not has to be seen. At this stage seeking rejection of the petition applying Order VII Rule 11(d) was a premature action. Further, it is submitted that it is not a suit add therefore Order VII Rule 11 was not applicable.

The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings before the Courts) Rules, 2001 brings to my notice that by that rule, all arbitral proceedings particularly covered u/s 14 to 34 shall be treated as a suit and provisions of CPC will apply. Therefore, the petition has to be treated as a suit and as CPC is made applicable, Order VII Rule 11 would be applicable. This contention is upheld infavour of the petitioner.

However, as rightly pointed by the respondent''s counsel, the request to condone the delay is still pending and therefore, the petitioner''s contention that plaint had to be rejected was not grantable. I find no merit in the revision against the impugned order. Hence, the petition is hereby rejected.