APHC010329262008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 522/2008 Between: 1. DUGIRALA RAMA KOTAIAH, S/O.NAGABHUSHANAM CONTRACTOR R/O.MAGANTI VARI STREET, MARUTHI NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA - 4. ...APPELLANT AND 1. M/S BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD, Union of India, Ministry of Tele- Communications rep by Executive Engineer [Civil Division] O/o.Labbipet, Vijayawada. ...RESPONDENT Appeal Under Section_____against ordersset aside the judgement and decree passed in AS No.2 of 2006, dated 17.03.2008 on the file of the District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, preferred against the award dated 11.12.2003 given by Hon'ble Sole Arbitrator between the appellant and respondent in respect of the work "Constructions pf Staff Quarters [4 Type III and Type II] in C-DOT Exchage Compound at Chirala, Prakasam District", Vide Agrement No.1/TCDT/95-96 IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CMAMP 25100 OF 2008 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P BHASKARA MOHAN 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J C.M.A.No.522 of 2008 The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The appellant herein had been awarded works for construction of staff quarters in C-DOT Exchange Compound at Chirala, Prakasam District on 20.04.1995. The said work was to be completed within a period of 15 months. Thereafter, the appellant had taken up the execution of the work. However, certain disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent due to which the disputes were referred to arbitration. A learned Arbitrator, after hearing both sides, had passed an award, dated 11.12.2003, awarding certain amounts to the appellant. This award was served on the respondent on 17.12.2003. The fact of service, on 17.12.2003, can be seen from the averments in the petition, filed by the respondent, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. The petition, under Section 34 of the Act, came to be filed before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Vijayawada, on 09.04.2004. Thereafter, the learned District Judge, after considering the material placed before him, was pleased to set aside the award, by an order, dated 17.03.2008. Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant has moved the present Appeal, before this Court. 3. This Appeal came up before this Court on 27.01.2025 and was thereafter, posted to 03.02.2025 and later to 24.02.2025, when time was sought by the learned counsel for the appellant. 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J C.M.A.No.522 of 2008 4. The matter again came up before this Court on 17.03.2025, 16.06.2025, 30.06.2025, 21.07.2025, 28.07.2025 and on 11.08.2025. On all these occasions, there was no representation for the respondent. 5. On 08.09.2025, this Court, on account of the non-appearance of the respondent, had recorded the statement of the learned counsel for the appellant that he would be informing the learned Additional Solicitor General and the learned Deputy Solicitor General, regarding the necessity of representation for the respondent in this matter. The matter was again posted to 22.09.2025 and to 06.10.2025, to give an opportunity to the respondent to appear in the matter. 7. There has been no representation for the respondent in all these hearings. The matter has again come up before this Court today and is being taken up for hearing. 8. Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the appellant. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that an application, for setting aside the award, could be made within three months from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award. He would also submit that any delay beyond this period, for a period of one (01) month may be condoned by the Court on an application made by the said party. 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J C.M.A.No.522 of 2008 10. In the background of this provision of law, the learned counsel would submit that the respondent had received the order on 17.12.2003 and filed the application on 09.04.2004, which is 114 days from the date of receipt of the award. He would submit that no application for condonation of delay had been filed by the respondent. However, the Trial Court had taken up the application for hearing and passed orders on the application filed by the respondent. The learned counsel would also submit that such a course of action was not available to the Trial Court as the application, under Section 34 of the Act, in the absence of an application for condonation of delay, was clearly barred by limitation. He would also contend that, even on merits, the order of the Trial Court has to be set aside in as much as the Trial Court went into the evidence adduced before the learned Arbitrator and had re-appreciated the evidence placed before the learned Arbitrator and the same is not permissible. The learned counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to Section 34 of the Act, to contend that none of the provisions of Section 34 permit re-appreciation of the evidence of the Court and that nowhere does the Section provide that an application, not complying with the condition set out in Section 34, would draw the Trial Court to intervene with the award passed by the arbitrator. The learned counsel would submit that no such contention had been made out by the Trial Court, which acted more as a Court of Appeal rather than a Court exercising jurisdiction, under Section 34 of the Act. 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J C.M.A.No.522 of 2008 11. Section 34 (3) of the Act reads as follows: (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter. 12. The said provision makes it clear that any petition, under Section 34 of the Act, to set aside the award, would have to be filed within three months from the date on which the party making such an application had received the award. A further period of 30 days is provided, where the party making the application is able to demonstrate to the Court that such additional period of delay should be condoned. This would, however, be done by way of filing a separate application for condonation of delay. 13. In the present case, no such application appears to have been filed, as can be seen from the orders of the Trial Court. In such circumstances, the petition itself was barred by limitation and the Trial Court could not have gone into the merits of the case. 6 RRR, J & TCDS, J C.M.A.No.522 of 2008 14. In view of our finding on the question of limitation, we do not propose to go into the second contention of the learned counsel as to the scope of intervention under Section 34 of the Act. 15. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the Trial Court, dated 17.03.2008 and resist the award of the learned Arbitrator, dated 11.12.2003. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 27.10.2025 MJA 7 RRR, J & TCDS, J C.M.A.No.522 of 2008 299 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 522/2008 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 27.10.2025 MJA