Bela M.Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 5.4.07 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Kota, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the court below') in Civil Misc. Case No. 83/05, whereby the court below has dismissed the application of the appellants -applicants filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act alongwith the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It appears that the award dated 29.10.04 passed by the Arbitrator was sought to be challenged by the appellants before the court below under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') alongwith the application after the prescribed period of limitation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The said application was dismissed by the court below vide the impugned order, holding that the Limitation Act does not apply to Section 34 of the said Act.
(2.) THE learned counsel Mr. Neeraj Batra for the appellants has failed to point out as to how the provisions of Limitation Act would be application to Section 34 of the said Act. On the contrary, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. M/s. Popular Construction Company : AIR 2001 SC 4010 in which it has been held that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable to an application challenging an award under Section 34 of the said Act and as such there is no scope of assessing sufficiency of the cause for the delay beyond the period prescribed in the proviso to Section 34 of the said Act. In view of the above, the court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the court below. The appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.;