INDER SEN ISRANI,J. - (1.) THIS is a Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 39(i)(iv) of the Arbitration Act against the order of learned Additional District Judge, Ajmer in Civil case No, 60/71 (21 of 1972) setting -aside the award given by the arbitrator.
(2.) A suit was filed by the plaintiff -appellant against the respondents, in which an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was filed by the respondents. This application was accepted and the matter was referred to the arbitrator as mentioned in the hire purchase agreement. This application was accepted on 28 -3 -1962. It is not very relevant to, go into, the details that an appeal was filed by the appellant against this order in this court, which was rejected and the application to grant leave was also dismissed. Thereafter the plaintiff appellant filed a, claim with the arbitrator on 14 -2 -1971. The arbitrator passed the award on 19 -9 -1971 in favour of the plaintiff -appellant for Rs. 21,161.42p. and also awarded interest at rate of 6% P a. on the original amount of Rs. 19,660.55 p. which was the principal amount from 6 -1 -1960 till recovery of the amount. An application was made by the arbitrator for making the award rule of court, along with an application for condoning the delay. Notice was issued to the opposite parties inviting objections. The opposite party challenged the award on various grounds. The learned lower court, therefore, framed as many as 10 issues arising out of the objections. For the purpose of this appeal Issue Nos. 3(a) and (b), 4 and 5 are the only relevant issues. Issues No. 3 and 4 relate to point of limitation and issue No. 5 relates to awarding future interest. Learned Counsel for the appellant Shxi B.L.Mandhana has contended that the learned lower court has seriously erred in deciding the objections raised by the opposite parties that the claim filed by the appellant before the arbitrator was time barred and, therefore, the arbitrator could hot have entertained this claim. He has also pointed out that the rulings quoted in the judgment of learned lower court relate only to the point of those provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to the arbitration proceedings. He has urged that these rulings are not relevant as there is no dispute between the parties on this point. He has however contended that the objection regarding the claim of the appellant being time barred, was never raised before the arbitrator and it was raised for the first time in the court of learned Additional District Judge by way of objections filed for setting aside the award. It has been urged that since this objection was not raised by the opposite parties before the arbitrator, it cannot be raised for the first time in the court of learned Additional District Judge. He has further urged that the learned, trial court has erred in holding that it was the duty of the arbitrator to have himself considered this point of limitation even though it was not raised by the respondents before him.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite parties Shri J.P. Goyal and Shri J.K. Dhingara appearing for the respondents have supported the judgment of learned Additional District Judge and have urged that under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, it is the duty of the court to take note of the point of limitation and decided the same, even though none of the parties may have raised this point before the court. It has, therefore, been contended that the learned lower court has committed no error in setting aside the award on the point of limitation.;