- (1.) RESPONDENT No. 1, Messra Phool Chand Satya Pal Engineers and Contractors, filed a petition under Sections 20 and 22 of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereinafter called the 'act') before the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jagadhri seeking appointment of an arbitrator as per clause 75 of the agreement for settling the dispute which had arisen between the parties. This petition was allowed on 23rd November, 1990, and one Sh. S. P. Ajmani, Superintending Engineer, Haryana State Electricity Board was appointed as the Arbitrator. The Haryana State Electricity Board aggrieved by the aforesaid order filed an appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, under Section 39 (i) (iv) of the Act and the same having been filed belatedly, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved. The Additional District Judge, however, vide his order dated 24th July, 1991 held that as no sufficient cause had been made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal, dismissed the same as being time barred. The reasoning of the learned Additional District Judge, was that it was well settled that in seeking condonation of delay, the person (s) claiming the benefit was required to explain each days' delay and if this was not done, limitation could not be condoned. The present petition has been filed impugning the order of the Additional District Judge.
(2.) MR. R. C. Setia, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has urged that the finding of the Additional District Judge, that each days' delay was required to be explained for seeking condonation of delay was contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and Anr. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. A. I. R. 1987 S. C. 1353. He has also urged that the Supreme Court in the above cited case as well as in G. Ramegowda v. Special Land Acquisition Officer Bangalore A. I. R. 1988 S. C. 897 has held that in cases of condonation of delay some special discretion and latitude must be shown to governmental authorities.
(3.) MR. S. P. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has in support of his case cited Balaram Das v. Sarathi Dalapai and Ors. A. I. R. 1988 Orissa 10 and United India Insurance Company Limited v. Karam Singh and Ors. 1992 H. R. R. 289 to assert that sufficient cause must be shown for condoning the delay and conclusion had been reached in the first two cited cases on a consideration of the judgments of the Supreme Court, above referred. He has further urged that the petitioner initiated the move for filing the appeal on 28th December, 1990 which was the last date of limitation for doing so and as such it could not be said that there was no negligence or inaction on its part.;