PATHAK,J. - (1.) The appellant, the Union of India, entered into a contract with the respondent, Ali Ahmad, for the supply of goods. The contract contained an arbitration clause. A difference having arisen between the parties, the appellant filed an application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 before the learned Civil Judge, Bareilly. The application was opposed, inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by time. Before the learned Civil Judge, the respondent relied on Article 181 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 while the case of the appellant was that Article 120 applied. The contention of the respondent found favour with the learned Civil Judge and holding that the application was barred by time he rejected it. The appellant has preferred an appeal against that order.
(2.) The appeal came on for hearing before D. S. Mathur, J. who referred the case to a larger Bench. When the appeal was listed before a Division Bench, the Bench expressed the opinion that the question whether Article 181 of the Limitation Act applied to an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act should be considered by a still larger Bench. Accordingly, the matter has now been laid before us.
(3.) Section 3 of the Limitation Act requires that every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and applications made after the period of limitation prescribed therefor by the first schedule shall be dismissed. The first schedule appended to the Act is divided into three divisions, the first division relates to suits, the second to appeals and the third to applications. In the statute as originally enacted, some of the articles in the third division referred to the Code of Civil Procedure. Among them, Article 158 spoke of an application "Under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside an award." and Article 178 referred to an application "Under the same Code for the filing in Court of an award in a suit made in any matter referred to arbitration by order of the Court, or of an award made in any matter referred to arbitration without the intervention of a Court." It will be recalled that when the Limitation Act was enacted on August 7, 1908, the Code of Civil Procedure had already been on the statute book since March 21, 1908, and provision in relation to arbitrations was contained therein in Sec. 89, in Clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 104 and in the second schedule. Apart from Articles 158 and 178 of the Limitation Act there were other articles which referred to applications under the Code. None of the Articles in the third division mentioned specifically any other enactment. There were articles, such as Article 181, which did not refer to any statute at All. Article 181 dealt with - "Applications for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this schedule or by section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908." Now, there are a large number of enactments apart from the Code of Civil Procedure which contemplate the making of an application under one or other of their provisions. The question arose before the Courts in India whether Article 181 governs such applications in the matter of limitation. Ever since Bai Manekbai v. Manekji Kavasji, (1883) ILR 7 Bom 213 the Courts have held that Article 181 refers only to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure. There is a long series of decisions speaking with the same voice, and they include the high authority of the Privy Council in Ramdutt Ramkissen Das v. E. D. Sassoon and Co., AIR 1929 PC 103 and Hansraj Gupta v. Dehradun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. Ltd., AIR 1933 PC 63. A Full Bench of this Court in Shiam Lal J. Dewan v. Official Liquidators, AIR 1933 All 789 adopted the same view.;