( 2025:HHC:24273 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA OMP(M) No. 59 of 2025. Decided on : 25 th July, 2025. National Highway Authority of India ...Applicant/Appellant. Versus Bablu Kumar & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant/appellant: Ms. Shreya Chauhan and Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge. (Oral) OMP(M) No. 59 of 2025. Heard. 2. No reply is sought to be filed. 3. The delay of 258 days in filing the appeal has been sought to be condoned by the applicant/appellant on the ground that initially there has been some delay in communication of the factum of decision in the case and subsequently reasonable time was taken for seeking necessary opinion for filing of instant appeal. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:24273 ) 4. Since, there is no opposition to the averments made in the application coupled with the fact that the said averments are duly supported by an affidavit of the competent officer, there is nothing before this Court to disbelieve the reasons assigned for condonation of delay. 5. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Arbitration Appeal No. of 2025. 6. Appeal be registered. 7. Notice to the respondents. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel waives service of notice. 8. The instant appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in Arbitration Case No. 179 of 2023, whereby the application for condonation of delay, filed by the appellant herein, in filing the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act has been dismissed. 9. The impugned order reveals that the application for condonation of delay was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the appellant herein beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. From the grounds of appeal also it is not suggested that such findings of fact are incorrect. That 3 ( 2025:HHC:24273 ) being so, no fault can be found in the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, as it is well settled that the delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be condoned by any authority or Court. 10. In result, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed. 11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 25th July, 2025. (jai)