“ 10. The l ear ned counsel f or t he appel l ant has r el i ed on t he deci si on i n t he case of S. Ganeshar aj u ( dead) t hr ough LRs. and Anr . v. Nar samma ( dead) t hr ough LRs. and Or s. ( 2013) 11 SCC 341 t o cont end t hat t he expr essi on " suf f i ci ent cause" as cont empl at ed under Sect i on 5 of t he Li mi t at i on Act shoul d be gi ven l i ber al const r uct i on so as t o advance subst ant i al j ust i ce and t he del ay shoul d be condoned unl ess t he opposi t e par t y i s abl e t o show mal af i de i n not appr oachi ng t he Cour t wi t hi n t i me. I t i s f ur t her cont ended t hat i t i s hel d t her ei n t hat t he r ul es of l i mi t at i on ar e not meant t o dest r oy or f or ecl ose t he r i ght of par t i es. The l ear ned counsel f or t he r espondent on t he ot her hand woul d cont end t hat t he sai d deci si on r ender ed i s i n t he cont ext of consi der at i on of " suf f i ci ent cause" as cont empl at ed under Sect i on 5 of t he Li mi t at i on Act whi ch woul d not be appl i cabl e t o pr oceedi ngs under Sect i on 34 of t he Act , 1996. I n t hat r egar d, t he l ear ned counsel f or t he r espondent has r el i ed on t he deci si on i n t he case of Uni on of I ndi a v. Popul ar Const r uct i on Company, ( 2001) 8 SCC 470 wher ei n i t i s hel d t hat Sect i on 5 of t he Li mi t at i on Act i s not appl i cabl e t o t he pr oceedi ngs under Sect i on 34 of t he Act , 1996 f or set t i ng asi de t he ar bi t r al awar d. Fur t her t he deci si on i n t he case of Si mpl ex I nf r ast r uct ur e Lt d. v. Uni on of I ndi a, ( 2019) 2 SCC 455 i s al so r el i ed upon t o cont end t hat Sect i on 5 of t he Li mi t at i on Act has no appl i cat i on t o a pet i t i on chal l engi ng t he ar bi t r al awar d under Sect i on 34 of t he Act , 1996. The sai d deci si on woul d however i ndi cat e t hat Sect i on 14 of t he Li mi t at i on Act i s appl i cabl e t o an appl i cat i on submi t t ed under Sect i on 34 of t he Act , 1996 seeki ng f or excl usi on of cer t ai n per i od i f t he appl i cat i on under Sect i on 34 of t he Act , 1996 i s at t he f i r st i nst ance f i l ed wi t hi n t he l i mi t at i on per i od pr ovi ded under Sect i on 34( 3) of t he Act , 1996. The posi t i on of l aw t hat Sect i on 5 of t he Li mi t at i on Act i s not appl i cabl e t o condone t he st at ut or y per i od under Sect i on 34( 3) of Act , 1996 i s wel l est abl i shed and needs no r ei t er at i on.
