AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.B. Majmudar, D.P. Mohapatra and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.—Leave granted.
We have heard learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 which is the contesting Respondent finally in this appeal. Respondent No. 1 is a proforma Respondent.
The short question is whether the application for condonation of delay moved by the Appellant In support of its application u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, could have been disposed of by the Court by holding that the application supported by affidavit filed was not maintainable. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 vehemently contended that the Appellant should have entered into the witness box and affidavit of evidence was not appropriate evidence. It is difficult to appreciate this contention which has weighed with the learned trial court. The revision application filed by the Appellant is also dismissed by the High Court. In our view, the affidavit evidence would have been sufficient evidence in support of the application for condonation of delay and if the other side wants the deponent to be present for cross-examination, it would obviously be open to the other side to make such a request. We are not concerned with the merits of the controversy whether the application for condonation of delay should be allowed or not but dismissal of the application for condonation of delay on the ground of its alleged non-maintainability cannot be sustained. The impugned order of the High Court and that of the trial court are set aside. The application for condonation of delay filed in connection with the petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, will now be considered by the trial court after hearing the parties on merits and in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.