- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. In spite of sufficient service, no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party at the time of hearing, hence, only the arguments of learned Counsel for the applicants were heard in both the revisions.
(2.) REVISIONS are withdrawn/treated to be withdrawn to this Court under Section 24 C. P. C. First revision is directed against order dated 30-9-1986 passed by Civil Judge, Gorakhpur in Misc. Case No. 128/70 of 1983. The said case had been instituted by Parasnath Ji Trust, opposite party under Section 8 of Arbitration Act, 1940. Arbitration Act, 1940 has been repealed by Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. However, by virtue of Sections 21 and 85 of new Act, proceedings which had commenced before passing of the new Act will have to be completed in accordance with Arbitration Act, 1940 vide T. Esthal Union GMBH v. Steel Authority of India, AIR 1999 SC 3923 and Neeraj Munjal v. Atul Grover, AIR 2005 SC 2867. The case of the opposite party before the Court below was that a particular piece of land had been let out by predecessor in interest of applicant Nagar Mahapalika Gorakhpur i. e. Municipal Board, Gorakhpur to the predecessor in interest of applicant opposite party Parasnath Ji Trust and under the lease- deed it was provided that the lessee was entitled to make construction over the land in dispute and at the time of vacation of land cost of the construction would be paid by the lessor to the lessee and decision of Chairman/administrator of the lessor in respect of cost of construction would be final. It was further pleaded that constructions of the lessee applicant were demolished on 23-8-1975 by lessor Nagar Mahapalika, Gorakhpur and that in terms of the lease-deed, lessee gave a notice on 17-8- 1983 to the Administrator, Nagar Mahapalika Gorakhpur for giving award in respect of the cost of constructions which were demolished in his capacity as Arbitrator. The case was filed under Section 8 of Arbitration Act, 1940 on 13-9-1983 as Arbitration proceedings were not initiated in pursuance of notice dated 17-8- 1983. Before the Court below Nagar Mahapalika, Gorakhpur raised two main objections one was of Limitation and the other was that in fact there was no agreement for Arbitration and the Clauses in the lease-deed relied upon by the trust did not amount to an agreement for referring the dispute to Arbitrator. Both the points were decided against applicant Nagar Mahapalika by the impugned order, hence, the first revision.
(3.) AS far as limitation is concerned, it has got two dimensions; one is limitation to file application under Section 8 Arbitration Act, 1940. Limitation for the said purpose is three years, under misc. article (Article 137) of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963. It has been held in different authorities including the following that the aforesaid limitation of three years starts from the date on which period of notice asking for initiation of arbitration proceeding before the arbitrator expires. (1) M. Mandal SSK Limited v. New India ASsurance Company Limited, 2001 ACJ 847 (2) Utkal CCC v. CC Fields, AIR 1999 SC 801. Accordingly, the view of the Court below that application under Section 8, Arbitration Act was not barred by limitation is correct.;