5. The sole ground taken by the petitioner in this Revision Petition to condone the delay is that he was not aware of the arbitral proceedings or passing of such an Award. He specifically stated that he came to know about the passing of the Award from his guarantor on 24.6.2013. He went to respondent No.1’s office and the office personnel suggested him to go to respondent No.4 at Khammam. He met respondent No.4 and took one certified copy from him, but the date was not mentioned in that certified copy. Again, he went to the office of respondent No.4 on 3.8.2013 and applied for the certified copy with date and came back on 18.8.2013. He received the certified copy on 19.8.2013 when respondent No.4 called him and informed him that the certified copy is ready. If that contention is true, he would have filed the certified copy taken from respondent No.4 on 24.6.2013 or any subsequent date. On his own admission, it is clear that by 24.6.2013, the petitioner was aware of passing of award by respondent No.4 on 10.4.2013. If the petitioner was diligent, he would have filed an application for setting aside the award under Section 34 of the Act within the period prescribed under Section 34(3) of the Act. He was not diligently prosecuting the case. Section 34(3) of the Act mandates a maximum period of 120 days for filing a petition to condone the delay in filing a petition to set aside the Arbitration Award. Therefore, the question of condoning the delay beyond 120 days does not arise. It is not a case where the petitioner was not having knowledge about the arbitral proceedings. Hence, the Court below rightly dismissed the said application and the same needs no interference by this Court as there is no illegality in passing the said order.
