Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of CR Nos. 1565, 2979 and 2980 of 2013. All these revision petitions are being taken up together for adjudication as the facts as also the matter in dispute, are the same. For convenience and clarity, facts are being taken from CR No. 1565 of 2013. Arbitral Award dated 28.1.2009 passed by the Arbitrator appointed under Section 3 -G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 had been challenged by way of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter mentioned as "the Act") by the applicant -objectors, who are revisionists herein. During the course of adjudication of the application under Section 34 of the Act filed by the petitioners herein, before the lower court, an application was moved by the respondent -Union of India seeking framing of a preliminary issue to the effect as to whether the delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the Act can be condoned? It was claimed that application under Section 34 of the Act preferred by the petitioners herein against the Award was not maintainable being time barred.
(2.) ACCEPTING the application of the respondent -Union of India herein, a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the application under Section 34 of the Act for condonation of delay, was framed. Sequelly, the application under Section 34 of the Act filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed as time barred vide order dated 3.1.2012. It is this order which is under challenge in these revision petitions on the ground that the lower court overlooked the provisions of Section 31(5) and Section 34(3) of the Act. It is claimed that without affording opportunity to the parties to address arguments on the preliminary issue of maintainability of application under Section 34 of the Act, the same was dismissed vide the same order vide which the application of the Union of India for framing preliminary issue was accepted.
(3.) PER contra, stand of the respondents is that when there is no provision for condonation of delay in filing the application under Section 34 of the Act, the trial court in passing the impugned order, made neither factual nor legal mistake and thus, the impugned orders should be upheld.;