- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the par ties.
(2.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 03-02-2003, passed in miscellaneous case No. 25 of 2002 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) / Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar, whereby applica tion under Section 05 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was rejected by the trial court in entertaining the objections filed un der Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the award of the Arbitrator. It appears that an award was given by the Arbitrator on 06-03-2002 and the revisionist filed his objections only on 24-10-2002 with application to condone the delay in filing the objec tions. Sub- section 3 to Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides three months period for filing objections against the award. Proviso to said sub-section permits further 30 days time to the objectors provided they show sufficient cause that they were prevented from making the objec tions against the award. The language of sub-section 3 of Section 34 of afore said Act provides self-contained period of limitation for which Limitation Act is not required to be seen. Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides as under: "where any special or local law pre scribes for any suit, appeal or appli cation a period of limitation differ ent from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of sec tion 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of de termining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sec tion 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly ex cluded by such special or local law. " The aforesaid proviso has been in terpreted by the Apex Court relating to the period allowed for filing the objec tions under Section 34 of the Arbitra tion and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Un ion of India Vs. M/s Popular Construc tion Company reported in 2001 A. I. R. S. C. W. 3994. In para-7 of said judg ment, the Apex Court has held that there is no dispute that the 1996 Act is a special law, and that Section 34 pro vides for a period of limitation differ ent from that prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963. After discussing the issue in para 12 and 13 in the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court held in para 14 that the time of limita tion prescribed under Section 34 to challenge an award is absolute and un-extendable by court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In view of the aforesaid princi ple of law given by the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that learned trial court has not erred in law in rejecting the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, by the re visionist, to get his objections enter tained against the award. As such, since there is no illegality in the impugned order nor is there any jurisdictional er ror, the revision is liable to be dis missed. Accordingly, the revision is dis missed. .;