JUDGMENT : 1. In this Miscellaneous Appeal directed against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, making the award of an Arbitrator a rule of the court, three applications have been made by the Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., the Appellant in the appeal, one for the substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased Respondent N.C. Budharaja (described hereinafter as the Respondent), another u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in taking steps for substitution and the third one for setting aside abatement caused for not bringing in the legal representatives of the deceased Respondent in time. 2. As has been stated in the applications made by the Appellant and in the objection raised by one of the proposed legal representatives, the Respondent died on 23-9-1982. The applications for substitution of the legal representatives and for condoning the delay have been made on 3-4-1984. The other application for setting aside abatement has been made on 9-5-1984. According to the Appellant, the other side had not intimated the factum of death and being a Government Corporation it had no knowledge of the fact of death of the Respondent until a few days before making the applications on 3-4-1984. One of the proposed legal representatives has opposed the applications and according to him, the assertions in the applications are not only groundless, but false. 3. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that there are good grounds for condoning the delay and setting aside abatement and for allowing the substitution prayed for. It has also been submitted by him that the Appellant is a Government Corporation and there has been no intentional delay. Mr. Rath, the learned Counsel for the proposed legal representative has, however, submitted on the basis of the annexures put in by him that untrue grounds have been taken by the Appellant-Corporation and the mere fact that it is a Government Corporation may not be a ground to allow the applications. 4. As has been held by this Court in Executive Engineer, R.E. Division, Puri v. Gangaram Chhapolia ILR 1977 Cutt 660, the CPC applies to the proceedings under the Arbitration Act as provided u/s 41 of that Act. 4. As has been held by this Court in Executive Engineer, R.E. Division, Puri v. Gangaram Chhapolia ILR 1977 Cutt 660, the CPC applies to the proceedings under the Arbitration Act as provided u/s 41 of that Act. The delay in making an application must satisfactorily be explained and it has been well-settled that delay of each day is to be explained by the party making an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. 5. Mr. M.V. Ramanamurty, the Accounts Officer of the Appellant, has sworn the affidavits in support of the applications for substitution and for condoning the delay. The clerk-in-charge of the case has sworn the affidavit in support of the application for setting aside the abatement. It has been brought to my notice that the Appellant has obtained an order of stay in Execution Case No. 74 of 1982 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, in which after the death of the Respondent, substitution of the legal representatives had been alleged by the order dated 20-11-1982. In that litigation, therefore, the Appellant had the knowledge of the death of the Respondent. In other matters, too, orders for substitution have been passed on different dates to the knowledge of the Appellant. In Execution Case No. 75 of 1982 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar, on the death of the Respondent, order for substitution of the legal representatives has been passed on 20-11-1982. In O.S. No. 270 of 1982(1) in the same court, on the death of the Respondent, the legal representatives have been substituted by order dated 19-11-1982. Similar is the case in O.S. No. 271 of 1982(1). In each of these matters, the Appellant was a party. 6. In support of the contents of the affidavit sworn in by the proposed legal representative opposing the applications, annexures have been filed. Mr. M.V. Ramanamurty, the Accounts Officer, had stated on 14-2-1983 in Misc. Case No. 307 of 1980 before Mr. Justice B.K. Patra, Arbitrator, Bhubaneswar, that the Respondent had died since 23-9-1982 and his legal representatives had not been brought on the record. In Misc. Case No. 306 of 1980, the same averments had been made on 14-2-1983 by the same officer on behalf of the Appellant. By order dated 20-11-1982, the Arbitrator had passed order for substitution of the legal representatives in place of the Respondent. In Misc. Case No. 306 of 1980, the same averments had been made on 14-2-1983 by the same officer on behalf of the Appellant. By order dated 20-11-1982, the Arbitrator had passed order for substitution of the legal representatives in place of the Respondent. All this would clearly go to show that the Appellant was fully aware of the fact that the Respondent had died on 23-9-1982. The contents of the applications made in this Court that the Appellant had no knowledge about the death until a few days before making the applications must, therefore, be held to be untrue. 7. On 27-7-1984, Mr. M.V. Ramanamurty, the Accounts Officer of the Appellant, has put in another application supported by an affidavit and has stated: 2. That I have gone through the counter affidavit filed in aforesaid case and understood the contents thereof. That in all the litigations described in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the counter affidavit the opp. party had taken steps to substitute late N.C. Budhraj after his death. 4. That this deponent honestly believed that it is the duty of opp. party to substitute late N.C. Budharaj in this case pending before this Hon'ble Court and did not inform the legal Department of the corporation to instruct the counsel accordingly. 8. It is not understood as to how the deponent who has been swearing affidavits on behalf of the Appellant in different cases would have the impression that the legal representatives of the deceased Respondent N.C. Budharaja would make an application for substitution in an appeal preferred by the Appellant. Corporation and that for this reason, he bona fide believed that no steps were to be taken by the Corporation and he did not inform the Legal Department of the Corporation about it. A new stand has evidently been taken by the Appellant in view of the counter affidavit put in by the proposed legal representative supported by annexures referred to above. 9. The Appellant has thus taken inconsistent and irreconcilable grounds to explain the delay. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the applications are devoid of merit. The mere fact that the Appellant-Corporation is a Government Corporation cannot, by itself, be a ground for allowing the applications which cannot be sustained in law. The applications for substitution, condoning and delay and setting aside abatement are, therefore, rejected. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the applications are devoid of merit. The mere fact that the Appellant-Corporation is a Government Corporation cannot, by itself, be a ground for allowing the applications which cannot be sustained in law. The applications for substitution, condoning and delay and setting aside abatement are, therefore, rejected. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed