R.K.Rastogi, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.5.2001 passed by Sri Kaushlendra Yadav, then learned Civil Judge ( Senior Division), Sonbhadra in Civil Misc. Case No. 87 of 1999 B.B.Verma v. National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd. and Anr.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff respondent No. 1 had entered into a contract with the defendant appellant for construction of Roads, Bridges and Nuliah Crossings for Rihand Super Thermal Power Station, Stage I, Rihand, STPP Unit. This agreement contained an arbitration clause. Since some disputes arose between the parties, the plaintiff invoked this arbitration clause. Then the Chairman and Managing Director of the defendant-appellant appointed the defendant- respondent No. 2 as the sole Arbitrator vide his letter dated 29.8.1986. The Arbitrator conducted the proceedings and gave his award on 29.6.1993. He also forwarded a copy of that award to the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 which was received by him on 10.7.1993. Then the plaintiff relying upon the statement of the parties made before the arbitrator on 28.5.1993 regarding jurisdiction of Delhi courts moved an application on 16.7.1993 before the Delhi High Court for making that award the rule of the court. This application was registered as original suit No. 1736 of 1993. The defendant-appellant filed his objections against that award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which was registered as I.A. No. 10040 of 1993. The Single Judge of the Court held by his order dated 18.7.1996 that the courts at Delhi had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Aggrieved with that order, the plaintiff filed FAO (O.S.) No. 308 of 1996. That appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of that Court on 6.7.1999 and the judgment of the Single Judge was affirmed providing that the petition should be returned to the plaintiff for presenting it before the proper court. The petition was ultimately returned back to the plaintiffs counsel on 24.8.1999. Then he moved this application for making the award rule of the court in the court of the Civil Judge ( Senior Division) Sonbhadra on 4.9.1999. He also moved an application under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application. It was stated in that application that the time which was spent in pursuing the application before the Delhi High Court should be excluded in counting the limitation and the application should be treated to be within time.
(3.) This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 87 of 1999 in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division ). He issued notice of this application to the defendant appellant as well as to the Arbitrator, who had been impleaded as defendant No. 2. The defendant-appellant put in appearance in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division ) on 15.1.2000 and received copy of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He also sought several adjournments to file objections, but no objection was filed and on the date fixed for hearing of the case the defendant appellant remained absent, so the court decided this case vide the judgment dated 31.5.2001 whereby he condoned the delay in filing the application and also allowed the application for making the award rule of the court. Aggrieved with that judgment and decree the defendant No. 1 filed this appeal.;