1. The award passed by an arbitrator came to be filed before this court and the court on 26th June, 2000 issued notice to the parties in terms of Section 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 2002 Bikrami (hereinafter referred to as Act). However on 27-12-2000, another a bench of this Court issued notice to the State through Director Litigation. Sh. Baldev Singh, Government Advocate appeared before the Court on 14-03-2001. Prior to that date, on 07-02-2001 one Varinder Kumar, PA to Chief Engineer seems to have appeared before the Registry 2. Be that as it may, Mr. Singh learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State has filed his objections on 20-03-2001. He has also filed an application for condonation of delay. I at the very outset propose to deal with the application part because the hundred dollar question to be answered here is as to on which date presumption of service of notice will be drawn. Mr. Baldev Singh has submitted that Director Litigation is an Officer not recognized by law and service upon does not mean service on the State. Thus the question which requires to be answered here is to whether service through Director Litigation is sufficient compliance of Section 14(2) of the Act supra. 3. Section 14(2) calls upon the court to give notice of filing of the award to the parties. State in the matter is not a party. It was Chief Engineer who was a party and who had executed an agreement with M/s Ranka Brothers. Therefore, in terms of this provisions of law, he had a right of being served by the Court. Expression used by the legislation in Section 14 (2) is: - ...and court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the Award.� 4. It becomes imperative that statute wanted notice to be issued to the Chief Engineer concerned and to none else. The statute we are concerned with is a Special Act and lays down its own procedure. In most of the eventualities it over rides the Code of Civil Procedure. Notice to be issued in terms of Section 14(2) is one of the eventualities. The fact that notice was ordered to be served through Director Litigation is no compliance of Section 14(2). In most of the eventualities it over rides the Code of Civil Procedure. Notice to be issued in terms of Section 14(2) is one of the eventualities. The fact that notice was ordered to be served through Director Litigation is no compliance of Section 14(2). Even in case of Civil Procedure Code, Director Litigation does not seem to be an authority through whom notice to the State Government can be issued in a civil matter. 5. In that view of the matter, I hold, that presumption of service of notice cannot be drawn from 27-12-2000 and not from 07-02-2001 when one Varinder Kumar appeared before the Registry on behalf of the Chief Engineer. Objections filed are within time, therefore, there is no need for condonation of delay. This CMP is accordingly disposed of. Objections are ordered to be taken on record. Now objections to the petition by Mr. Baldev Singh GA have also been filed.