I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and find no reason to accept the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner. It is not denied and is in fact admitted that in reply to the application calling upon the Arbitrator to present the award, respondent no.1, raised objections to the award filed on 15.4.1988 and that he filed additional objections on 16.7.1988. The trial court, rejected both sets of objections on the ground that the first set of objections were filed before the presentation of award, whereas the second set of objections were filed beyond the period of limitation. The first appellate court after due consideration of these facts adopted a pragmatic approach by holding that objections, filed in the reply to the application to direct the Arbitrator to present the award, are to be treated as objections to the award. I find no reason to differ with the view adopted by the appellate court. The mere fact that additional objections were filed on 16.7.1988, does not render objections filed in the reply to the application, as barred by time. The impugned order does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or of law. The revision is dismissed with no order as to costs.
