V.P.TYAGI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal of Smt. Kalsum Banoo directed against the judgment and the decree of the Additional District Judge, Ajmer is dated 24th January, 1975 rejecting the appellant's application alleged to have made under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act of 1940.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this litigation may be summarised in a nut -shell as follows: Mr. P.P. Gandhi is alleged to have been appointed by an agreement between the appellant and the respondents as arbitrator us adjudicate the dispute between the parties. It is alleged that Shri Gandhi give his award. The award was then filed in the court of the District judge, Ajmer under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act on 8th January, 1974. A notice under Sub -section (2) of Section 14 was then issued to Smt. Kalsum Banoo by the court which according to the respondent was served on Smt. Kalsum Banoo appellant on 2nd February, 1974. The counsel of the appellant then put in his appearance on behalf of the appellant before the District judge on 15th February, 1974 which was a date fixed for hearing in the matter. He prayed for some time to file the objections on behalf of the appellant. An application under Section 33 of the Act was actually filed before the court on behalf of the appellant Smt. Kalsum Binoo on 6th March, 1974. An objection was taken on behalf of the respondents M/s Gautam Asbestos Cement Products, Beawar that the application under Section 33 filed by Smt. Kalsum Banoo was barred by time An issue was framed and the learned Judge after hearing both the parties held that the summons was served on Smt. Kalsum Banoo on 2nd February, 1974. The application under Section 33 was filed on 6th March, 1974 which was undoubtedly beyond 30 days. Article 119(b) of the Limitation Act of 1963 prescribes a period of 30 days for filing objections to the award filed before the court under Section 14 of the Act. The finding of the court below in this case is that the application filed by Smt. Kalsum Banoo under Section 33 could be submitted by her within 30 cays from the date of the service of the summons on her and since it waa male beyond 30 days it was barred by time On this ground the application of Smt. Kalsum Banoo was rejected. It is against this judgment of the learned Additional District Judge that the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant. Learned Counsel for the appellant tried to show that Smt. Kalsum Banoo under the circumstances of this case was not at all served and, therefore, the court below has erred in computing the period of limitation from 2nd February, 1974 which in the opinion of the court was the date of service of summons on Smt Kalsum Banoo. But that submission of Mr. Mardia cannot be entertained in view of the admission of the learned Counsel himself in the memo of appeal wherein it has been admitted that the service was effected on Smt. Kalsum Banoo on 5th February, 1974. The only argument which now remains to be decided by this Court is whether in view of the report made by the serving officer Moti Lal can the court hold that the service was effected on on Smt. Kalsum Banoo on 2nd February, 1974 The report of Motilal on the back of the summon which he filed after effecting the service, reads as follows: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........
(3.) AT the fag end of this page we find the following language inscribed on this documents: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........;