A.K.PATNAIK, J. - (1.)LEAVE granted.
(2.)THESE are appeals by way of Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order dated 30.03.2010 of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in CIMA No.91 of 2010 with CMP No.125 of 2010 with Caveat No. 1259 of 2009 (reported in 2010 AIHC 2355).
The facts very briefly are that the appellant was awarded a contract by the respondent for constructing accommodation for married JCOs/Hav/Ors. It and the respondents provided that all disputes between the parties to the contract shall be referred to the sole arbitration of an Engineer Officer to be appointed by the Authority mentioned in the tender-documents. The disputes raised by the appellant were referred to an arbitrator and the arbitrator made an award dated 04.09.2007 to the effect that the appellant would be entitled to recover Rs.65,78,450/- together with litigation expenses and Arbitrator 's fee fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/-. The arbitrator further directed in the award that the respondents shall make the payment within three months from the date they receive the copy of the award, failing which the entire awarded amount shall be recoverable with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the award. In December 2007, the appellant filed an Execution Petition in the Court of District Judge, Jammu, for execution of the award.

(3.)THE respondents then filed an Arbitration Application No.8 of 2008 under Section 34 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (for short 'the Act of 1997 ') before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir for setting aside the award. The learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the application by order dated 07.12.2009 saying that the application for setting aside the award ought to have been filed under the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration Act of the year 1945 (for short 'the Act of 1945 '). The respondents carried an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was registered as CIMA No.91 of 2010 and by the impugned order dated 30.03.2010 passed in the said appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court held that the learned single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the Act of 1945 was applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the provisions of Section 68 of the Act of 1997. The Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge, but observed that it shall be open to the respondents to take such steps as are required to be taken under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act of 1945 in relation to the award, and if so advised, to file an application for condonation of delay. The appellant is aggrieved by this observation of the High Court that it will be open to the respondents to file an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act of 1945 along with an application for condonation of delay and has, therefore, filed this appeal.