JUDGMENT
D.P. Mohapatra, J.
1. The moot question that arises for consideration in this revision petition lies within a very narrow compass, that is, if the Court below was justified in making the award of the Arbitrators a rule of the Court before expiry of the prescribed period of thirty days for filing objections to the award.
2. The petitioner, a contractor, was entrusted with the work of special report to Bagunia-lodachua Road at 21st K. Ms. to 22nd K. Ms. on behalf of the opposite party under agreement No. 97-F2 of 1981-82. After completion of the work he submitted a final bill claiming Rs. 5,994. 00 from the opposite party. The bill was disputed and the matter was referred to the Arbitration Tribunal in terns of the agreement. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 914/- only,
3. As it appears from the lower Court records, the award was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Khurda, on 29-7-1983. The Court issued notice of filing of the award to the parties fixing 2-9-1983 for their appearance. The order-sheet in the case reveals that on 2-9-1983 both parties appeared through counsel and the case was posted to 12-9-1983 for filing of objections. On that day the case was again adjourned to 21-9-1983 for filing of objections, if any. On 21-9-1983 the Court passed the following cryptic order:
“Both parties file separate haziras. No objection, is filed by any party to-day. Let the award be made rule of the Court ”
This order is under challenge in the revision petition, It is relevant to mention here that from the lower Court records it appears that on 30th of August, 1983, notice of filing of the award was served on the petitioner by affixture,
4. Shri P. Mohanty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that in view of the provisions of Art. 119(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, it was incumbent upon the Subordinate judge to wait till expiry of the prescribed period, that is, thirty days from the date of service of notice of the filing of the award on the petitioner before pronouncing the judgment making the award a rule of the Court. Shri N. C. Panigrahi, the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, appearing for the opposite party tried to support the order of the Subordinate Judge contending that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it should be taken that the petitioner had given sufficient indication that he did not intend to file any objection to the award and as such, the Court made no error in disposing of the matter before expiry of the prescribed period,
5. The question is no longer res Integra- It came up for consideration before the Patna High Court in the case of Parmeshwar Yadav and other v. Misri. Lal Yadav, AIR 1974 Patna 67 wherein similar facts and situation the Court held that the order making the award a rule of the Court before expiry of thirty days from the date of service of notice on the petitioner was unsustainable and the order was vacated by the Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Court expressed its opinion in the following manner :
”…The provisions of Section V to the effect that the Court shall, after the time for making an application to set aside the award has expired, pronounce the judgment according to the award, in my opinion, definitely lay down that the Court has to wait for the time prescribed by the Limitation Act for making an application by either of the parties for setting aside the award, if any, and only after refusing the said application, if filed, he is entitled to pronounce the judgment according to the award …”.
The Court also held that the order of the Court in that case granting time lesser than thirty days as prescribed by the Limitation Act deprived the petitioner of the valuable right to file his objection to set aside the award. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision with which I am in respectful agreement, there is no escape from the position that in this case the Subordinate Judge erred in passing the order on 21-9-1983 making the award a rule of the Court by which date admittedly the prescribed period of thirty days from the date of service of notice on the petitioner had not expired.
6. Coming to the submission of the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, I have carefully perused the orders passed by the Court from 2-9-1983 to 21-9-1983. I find absolutely no indication therein even remotely suggesting that the petitioner indicated to the Court his intention not to file any objection to the award.
7. On the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned order is unsustainable and has to be vacated. The revision petition is allowed and the order dated 21-9-1983 is vacated. The Subordinate Judge is directed to issue fresh notice to the parties giving them opportunity to file objection, if any, to the award and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Both parties will bear their respective costs of this proceeding.