Limitation for filing arbitral award application applied, and condonation failed for lack of sufficient cause.

An application to have an arbitral award made a rule of court was treated as a request for the arbitrator to file the award in court, not as an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. Because the arbitrator had given no express authority to the applicant to file the award and the forwarding letter showed the signed copy was sent only for information, Article 119(a) of the Limitation Act applied. On the evidence, the courts found receipt of the award in March 1965, and the applicant failed to produce the registered cover to support a later date. The application was therefore time-barred, and the explanation offered did not establish sufficient cause for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application to make the arbitral award a rule of court was governed by Article 119(a) of the Limitation Act and was barred by limitation, and whether the delay deserved condonation.

Analysis: The application was held to be one for directing the arbitrator to file the award in court, not an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. No express authority had been given by the arbitrator to the appellant to file the award, and the forwarding letter showed that the signed copy was sent only for information. In the absence of such authority, Article 119(a) applied. The courts below found, on the evidence, that the appellant had received the award in March 1965, not May 1965, and the appellant had not produced the registered cover that would have supported his version. On that footing, the application was time-barred, and the explanation offered did not establish sufficient cause for condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

Conclusion: The application was barred by limitation and the delay was not liable to be condoned.

---