JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Contractor in whose favour an award has been passed by the Arbitrator, has assailed the order of the trial Court in entertaining an application objecting to the award u/s 30 of the Arbitration Act (for short 'the Act') beyond 30 days as provided under Art. 119 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. 2. The award was passed on 6-4-1992. It was sent to Court u/s 14 of the Act on 15-4-1992. Arbitrator gave notice to the parties on 6-4-1992 intimating passing of the award and filing in Court in token of which the parties signed the order-sheet of the arbitrator. Award was submitted to Court three days after of the date fixed. On receipt of the award. Court issued notice to the opposite party in both ways for filing objection, if any fixing date of appearance and to show cause. On receipt of notice, opposite party filed objection on 15-7-1992 as stipulated in the notice. Petitioner in the Civil Revision raised objection stating that the application u/s 33 of the Act objecting to the award by the opposite party is barred by limitation having been filed beyond 30 days which is the prescribed period fixed under the Limitation Act, 1963 in Art. 119 of the schedule. When application was filed on 15-7-1992 it was defective. Defect was removed and an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on 16-7-1992 by the opposite party. In view of the objection of opposite party, the maintainability of the application u/s 33 of the Act was considered by trial Court and it was held that such application is entertainable. Aggrieved by said order present Civil Revision has been -filed. 3. As required u/s 14(1) of the Act notice of making of the award is to be given by the Arbitrator to the parties. Mention of the making of the award in the order sheet of the proceeding and getting signature of the parties satisfied this requirement. Aggrieved by said order present Civil Revision has been -filed. 3. As required u/s 14(1) of the Act notice of making of the award is to be given by the Arbitrator to the parties. Mention of the making of the award in the order sheet of the proceeding and getting signature of the parties satisfied this requirement. A party getting notice may either take steps for making the award a rule of Court to become a decree u/s 17 of the Act or object to the same u/s 33 thereof, Each is a separate proceeding while under the rules an application to make the award rule of Court is to be registered as a suit, an application u/s 33 of the Act is registered as a Misc. Case. Where an Arbitrator is aopointed u/s 8 of the Act, suit is to be registered after application is filed to make the award a rule of Court. Where Arbitrator is appointed and reference is made u/s 20 of the Act, an application initiating a proceeding u/s 20 of the Act is registered as a suit. Such suit is not disposed of on a reference being made since Court fixes time for making the award. When award is received in Court, it is to be dealt with in the said suit and application for making the award rule of Court is to be made in the said suit. Application u/s 33 is also to be made in the said suit. On the award being made a rule of Court, the suit stands disposed of. when Arbitrator is appointed u/s 21 of the Act in a suit, such suit continues till the award received is made a rule of Court. Whether the award is received by Court in a suit or independency, steps are to be taken by parties within the time prescribed. For setting aside an award period of limitation is 30 days, from the date of service of the notice of the filing of the award as provided in Art. 119 (b) in the schedule to the Limitation Act 1963. 4. Mr. For setting aside an award period of limitation is 30 days, from the date of service of the notice of the filing of the award as provided in Art. 119 (b) in the schedule to the Limitation Act 1963. 4. Mr. S. S. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that assuming that the application of the petitioner dated 15-7-1992 is without defect, the same is barred by limitation since an objection is to be filed from the date of receipt of notice that the award has been filed as required u/s 14 of the Act. It is submitted that since the award was passed on 6-4-1992 and on the same day the parties have know- ledge of passing of the award and filing of the same within the date as fixed by Arbitrator as required under Art. 119 of the Limitation Act. Mr. Das further submitted that time having been prescribed by the legislature, objection could not have been entertained beyond 30 days. He has relied on a decision of this Court reported in Ganesh Chandra Misra Vs. Artatrana Misra and Others, and also another decision reported in Madan Lal Vs. Sunderlal and Another, where it is stated that the legislature purpose fully having fixed a time, the same is to be adhered to. Mr. Das also relied on a decision reported in 31 (1965) CLT 1011 (Golak Chandra Biswal v. State of Orissa) where an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed beyond the period of limitation. When trial Court condoned the delay and allowed the application, this Court held that the delay could not have been condoned by the trial Court. Submission of Mr. Das requires careful consideration. 5. Prior to 1-1-1964 when the Limitation Act, 1908 was in force, same period as in the new Limitation Act was prescribed under Arts. 1.68 and 178 of the old Limitation Act. There was no scope for condonation of delay in filing of application beyond the period of limitation prescribed since Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was only applicable where it is specifically provided for. Thus, Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was attracted. In that view, the decision reported in Ganesh Chandra Misra Vs. Artatrana Misra and Others, dealing with application beyond period prescribed being before 1-1-1964 when the Limitation Act. Thus, Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was attracted. In that view, the decision reported in Ganesh Chandra Misra Vs. Artatrana Misra and Others, dealing with application beyond period prescribed being before 1-1-1964 when the Limitation Act. 1963 came into force have no application to cases to which Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable as Section 5 of the said Act is now applicable unless specifically excluded. Section 3 would apply subject to Sections 4 to 24 which includes Section 5. 6. Mr. S. S. Das. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that principle decided in the decision reported in 31 (1965) CLT 1011 (supra) is fully applicable to the present case since application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC in that case was filed on 18-2-1964 in respect of ex parte decree dated 18-1-1964. Relying on the decision reported in Ganesh Chandra Misra Vs. Artatrana Misra and Others, and a decision of the Apex Court in Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. Vs. Bhutnath Banerjee and Others, it was held that even one day delay cannot be condoned by the Court where a period of limitation has expired. There is no finding that prayer for condonation of delay of one day was made. Where there is no prayer for condonation of delay by explaining the cause of delay to be sufficient. Section 3 of the Limitation Act is attracted. Said decision is thus, distinguishable in facts since in the present case an application appears to have been filed. This decision is not a precedent on the question whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act is attracted. 7. As I find, trial Court has not considered the date from which limitation would begin to run. Clear statement of facts is not available. If I consider the question with the facts available, either party may suffer. Interest of justice requires that both parties get opportunity to prove further materials if they are so advised. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and trial Court is directed to reconsider the question of limitation afresh. Since already one year has passed after making of the award, trial Court shall do well in finalising the objection and making the award rule of Court at an early date preferably before ensuing Puja vacation. 8. In result, the Civil Revision is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed