R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 30.11.1998 passed of Additional District Judge, Hisar, who allowed the appeal of Haryana State Electricity Board by reversing the order dated 23.5.1996 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, who allowed the application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act and made the award dated 28.2.1992 as rule of the Court.
(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :- A dispute arose between the parties and under the orders of the Court the matter was referred to the arbitrator and the Court while making the reference directed the arbitrator to give the award by 24.11.1991. The award could not be given by the arbitrator by 24.11.1991 and the same was given on 28.2.1992. Application was moved for making the award rule of the court and vide order dated 23.5.1996 the award was made rule of the court and a decree was passed in favour of the contractor by dismissing the objections under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act. The HSEB was not satisfied with the order of the trial Court and filed an appeal before the first Appellate Court which vide impugned judgment allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court for the following reasons as given in para 8 of the impugned judgment :- "8. Thus it is clear that S.E. H.S.E.B. was fully competent to pass an award in this regard. There is no dispute that both the parties were given full opportunity by the Arbitrator. In this case the award was passed on 28.2.1992 by the Arbitrator and that award has been passed after the expiry of period of limitation as directed by the court. The Arbitrator should have submitted the award by 24.11.1991 positively but he has submitted the award on 28.2.1992. Thus, it is clear that the award is time barred. It was the duty of the parties/Arbitrator to approach the concerned court or its successor for the extension of the period of submitting the award but they have failed in this regard. No doubt, the parties have participated in the proceedings before the Arbitrator even after expiry of the direction given by the Court in this regard. But I am of the considered view that the Arbitrator has no right to extend the period after a specific direction by the Court even with the mutual consent of the parties or the Arbitrator. Hence, the award dated 28.2.1992 passed by the S.E., H.S.E.B., Hisar is liable to be set aside as it is beyond limitation." Now the contractor is not satisfied with the decision of the first Appellate Court and has filed the present revision.
(3.) NOTICE of the revision was given to the respondents. In spite of service the respondents did not appeal as a result of that they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 12.9.2000.;