B. J. HEGDE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 3860/1989 is respondent-1 and the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No. 3887/1989 is respondcnt-2 in Arbitration Case No. 3/1978 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Hubli. ( 2 ) THE Arbitrator filed an award before the Civil Judge. Respondent-1 filed an application before the learned Civil Judge for setting aside the award under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act with an application I. A. No. VII for condoning the delay in filing the said application on 17-9-1984. A similar application in LA. No. V was filed by respondent-2 along with an application for setting aside the award, on the same day. The trial court dismissed both the applications by a common order dated 25-3-1989 on the ground that section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply and that respondents-1 and 2 had knowledge of the filing of the award on 30-6-1984 and 7-7-1984 respectively. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioners rightly contend that the finding of the trial court that Section 5 is not applicable to the case on hand cannot be upheld in view of Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, which specifically says that all the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act will apply to arbitration proceedings in court. It is also their contention that filing of such applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not necessary in the instant case, as no notice of the filing of the award has been issued to them by the court so far. ( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that no notice of filing of the award from the court has been issued to the respondents so far. The contention of the respondents in these petitions is that the evidence discloses that the filing of the award was informed by the Arbitrators to respondent-1 on 30-6-1984 and respondent-2 on 7-7-1984 and that the limitation would commence from the said dates. ( 5 ) ARTICLE 119 of the Limitation Act reads thus: