ORDER 1. These two revisions are filed by the defendants in the Court below challenging the orders allowing the applications seeking condonation of delay of 17 days in filing applications/suits under Sections 14, 30 and 32 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and directing the defendants to file the award and set aside the award in respect of certain claims. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the applications, it was stated that the arbitration proceedings dated 10-5-1999 were received on 13-5-1999 whereupon advice was sought from the Government Pleader in the High Court on 20-5-1999, which was replied to by him on 9-6-1999 advising to file suits challenging the award and the said letter was received on 12-6-1999. On the basis of the said advice, a letter was addressed on the same day to the local Government Pleader. However, since the local Government Pleader was not available on 13-6-1999, the applications were filed after his return and obtaining the records and accordingly there was a delay of 17 days. 3. These applications were contested by the petitioners denying the reasons as shown in the affidavit and stating that there is no sufficient cause as such made out by the respondents for any such condonation of delay. A plea was also raised as to the inapplicability of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in respect of such suits. 4. On a consideration of the facts and the reasons as shown, the Court below has allowed the applications. 5. In these revisions, Sri. M.V. Ramana Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, seriously contended that the affidavits filed in support of the applications are vague as anything and there is no day to day explanation and the respondents in fact did not give the explanation especially from the date of addressing the letter to the local Government Pleader till the date of filing of the cases. 6. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the respondents contended that the delay as such is very meager and the respondents have explained the delay properly and the petitioners did not rebut the same nor shown that there is any negligence on the part of the respondents as such and, therefore, the Court below has rightly allowed the applications. 7. 7. From the above rival contentions, the question is as to whether the respondents have made out any sufficient cause for condonation of the delay of 17 days. 8. The main suits are for seeking the filing of awards and challenging certain claims and a consequent direction to set aside the same under Sections 14, 30 and 32 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Though the petitions are termed as suits, however, in fact they are only applications filed under the aforesaid provisions of the Arbitration Act and for the sake of convenience, the proceedings are named as suits, though in fact they are not. Were it to be a suit, the question of application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not arise. However, as held in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s. Durgaram Prasad ( AIR 1984 A.P. 14 ), the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to such applications arising under the Arbitration Act. Following the said decision, it has to be held that the objection as taken in the Court below as to the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act no longer holds water. 9. Now coming to the cause as shown for the delay, it is specifically stated in the affidavits that soon after the receipt of the award, the Government Pleader at the High Court was contracted and on his advice, the local Government Pleader was addressed for filing the suits and it is at this stage there has been some delay. It was also stated that the local Government Pleader was not available and he also asked for certain records to enable the suits to be filed and in this process, there was some delay. Even from these reasons, it is evident that there is no delay as such on the part of any of the respondents herein or at their end and the delay if at all which remained unexplained is only after the receipt of the papers by the local Government Pleader. In the absence of any such attributable laches on the part of the respondents themselves, it cannot be said that they are not entitled to any indulgence. In the absence of any such attributable laches on the part of the respondents themselves, it cannot be said that they are not entitled to any indulgence. Further taking into account the fact that the delay is only 17 days and the matter being one substantially arising under the provisions of the Arbitration Act in respect of claims under awards, the Court below has rightly allowed the applications. It is now well established by the decision in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah ( AIR 1955 SC 425 ), which was followed in Bhagwan Swaroop v. Mool Chand ( AIR 1983 SC 355 ), that the procedural laws are devised for advancing the cause of justice and not for imposing penalties. It is equally well settled that the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act have to be liberally construed so as to give opportunity to the parties to have a decision on contest rather than denying them on mere technicalities. 10. In view of the well laid principles, these are not fit cases for interfering with the orders under revisions. The revisions fail and accordingly they are dismissed. No costs. Revision dismissed. *-*-*-*-*