R.BANUMATHI,S.CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.1.2013 in Arbitration Appeal No. 2 of 2010 by which the appeal preferred by the respondents-appellants was allowed setting aside the order passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Giridih in Title Suit (Arbitration) No. 9 of 2004 dated 26.2.2007 and directing the court below to decide the delay condonation application preferred by the respondent-State of Jharkhand as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, in Arbitration Appeal No. 2 of 2010 dated 11.1.2013, the appellants-respondents have preferred this appeal. The facts of the case are as under:-- A dispute arose between the appellants and the respondents with respect to the payment of amount for the works executed under the agreement was referred for arbitration. Accordingly, an arbitration proceeding was initiated and an arbitrator was appointed. The arbitration proceeding was concluded through arbitration and the award was delivered on 17th October, 2003. The said arbitrary award was challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Sub-Judge-I, Giridih by the present respondents. The Sub-Judge-I, Giridih vide Title Suit (Arbitration) No. 9 of 2004 dismissed the Suit by order dated 26th February, 2007 on the ground inter alia that application filed by the respondents-appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was barred by limitation and also on merits holding that there was no error on the face of the impugned award dated 17.10.2003 and cannot be said to exceed the jurisdiction in granting the award.
(2.) Thereafter, the respondents-appellants preferred an Arbitration Appeal No. 2 of 2010 against the judgment and order dated 26.2.2007 passed by Sub-Judge-I in Title Suit (Arbitration) No. 9 of 2004 before this Court and the learned Single Judge allowed the said Arbitration Appeal and hence, this L.P.A. has been preferred by the appellants-respondents.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants-respondents submitted that there were two issues before the trial court, one was as to whether the suit was barred by limitation and the other was as to whether the suit filed by the respondents was coming within its jurisdiction so as to set aside the award passed by the arbitrator and accordingly, the trial court decided both the issues against the respondents. The learned counsel further submits that the trial court held at one hand that no sufficient ground was shown to condone the delay and on the other hand the learned trial court was also of the view that even on merit the Suit was fit to be dismissed for which reasons have been assigned in the impugned judgment and order dated 26.2.2007 and therefore, the trial court has committed no error of law while passing the judgment. The learned counsel placed reliance on various judgments of the Apex Court including the judgment U P STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. SEARSOLE CHEMICALS LTD, 2001 3 SCC 397, : OLYMPUS SUPERSTRUCTURES PVT LTD v. MEENA VIJAY KHETAN, 1999 AIR(SC) 2102, INDER SAIN MITTAL v. HOUSING BOARD, HARYANA, 2002 3 SCC 175, CHIEF ENGINEER OF B P D P /R E O v. SCOOT WILSON KIRKPATRICK INDIA PVT LIMITED, 2007 3 JCR 636 and 2011 8 SCC 207. It is also stated that in a suit several issues can be raised and the trial court is bound to consider all those issues collectively and decide in favour or against one or other parties as it is well settled that in a suit several issues including limitation can be decided simultaneously and there was no illegality thereby committed by the trial court in the impugned judgment dated 26.2.2007.;