Judgment :- N.Kannadasan, J. Common Order: The above review applications are filed to review the common judgment and decrees rendered by us on 4.8.2004 in O.S.A.Nos.201 of 1998, 107 and 108 of 1999. 2. The learned counsel for the Review Applicant contended that the review applications are filed raising the following three issues to review the judgment and decree in the above appeals:- (i) The decree cannot be granted in favour of the respondent/contractor in the original petition filed by the review applicant wherein the award of the Arbitrator was set aside except in Claim (d) and in the appeal filed by the applicant seeking to set aside the order passed by the learned Judge. (ii) The claim No.(d) cannot be dealt with by the Arbitrators since they are not arbitrable on the ground that it is barred under Clause 6.5.3.(vi) of the contract agreement; and (iii) the Claim No.(d) is barred by Limitation. 3. As regards the first issue is concerned, we have already dealt with the above said plea in our judgment and as such there is no scope to review the same. If at all the applicant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree, it is open to them to challenge the same and accordingly the review application in respect of the said plea is not sustainable. 4. As regards the second issue is concerned, the learned counsel for the review applicant submitted that Clause 6.5.3 (vi) specifically prohibits that the said claim cannot be subjected to any arbitration. To decide the said issue, it is beneficial to extract the said clause, which reads as follows: 6.5.3. (vi)Suspension of the Work:- The Engineer may from time to time by direction in writing without in any way vitiating this contract direct the constructor to suspend the works or any part thereof desirable, and the contractor shall not, after receiving such written notice proceed with the works therein ordered to be suspended until he shall have received written notice or authority to the effect from the Engineer. The contractor shall not be entitled to claim from the purchaser compensation for any loss or damage sustained by him by reasons of the suspension of works as aforesaid. The contractor shall not be entitled to claim from the purchaser compensation for any loss or damage sustained by him by reasons of the suspension of works as aforesaid. Provided however, that the purchaser shall be liable to pay to contractor any cost incurred by him on the site by way of normal running expenditure such as the maintenance of workmen, without work resulting from the suspension of works on the orders of the Engineer as aforesaid. The decision of the Engineer as to what is normal running expenditure and the amount of such expenditure shall be final and conclusive, and not subject to any arbitration. No compensation shall be payable for idle labour, staff and machinery (hire otherwise) due to occasional power failure beyond the control of the Board and for pre arranged shutdowns in Electricity supply for which prior notice may be given." It is also beneficial to extract the claim (d), which reads as follows:- "Extra expenses: incurred and/or losses by the claimants due to execution of work of pressure shafts, draft Tubes, penstocks, orfice slabs of HRSS and TRSS, delay in work of power house cavern and extra expenses due to increase in height of CCVS, power cable shaft 1 and 2, and excavation of Pressure Shafts through adit. 1 and delay in payment of work bills and escalation came to Rs.2,60,47,094.46 (Ref) Annex.4). The work of construction of Access inand cable shafts, water conductor system. Power House cavern etc., for Kadampari Pumped storage Hydro Electric Project ws awarded to the claimants in May, 1979. As per the contract the work was to be completed in 36 months i.e., by 31.05.1982. After award of work the detailed construction programme for executing of various items of work was discussed, the said programme being made part of contract. As per the construction programme, excavation of various structure under the contract was to be completed finally by November,1981 and the concrete lining was finally by November, 1982. During the execution of work there were delays on account of change in method of working, delays in handing over the site, delay in payment of work bills, and escalation etc., The same was brought to the notice of the respondents by various letters by the claimants. During the execution of work there were delays on account of change in method of working, delays in handing over the site, delay in payment of work bills, and escalation etc., The same was brought to the notice of the respondents by various letters by the claimants. Due to the delay, the excavation of the various structures of the contract could not be completed in time and the same was completed only in May, 1984. The work of concrete lining of pressure shafts, penstocks, drafts tubes and penstock manifolds which was linked up with the erection of steel liner by other agencies was unduly delayed and could not be taken up in time. The work of concrete lining of Pressure Shafts, could not be started only in February, 1986. The claimants have written several letters on this subject. Due to these various delays, which are not on account of the claimants the resources arranged by the claimants for the placement of concrete and allied works in various locations remained idle and unutilised for long period. Thus the claimants had to incur extra expenses and or losses and or suffered losses due to idling and or under utilisation of resources. The details of losses were explained in full depth by the claimants vide their letter No.HKHP/CT/P1/A/889 Dt.09.06.1986, a copy of which is attached to this as Annex 6. The same may be treated as incorporated herein. The claimants were not getting work bills and escalation bills payment in time and on many occasions the delays were considerable." 5. A perusal of the claim (d) as extracted above discloses that the contractor has not raised the said claim on the basis of suspension of work mentioned in clause 6.5.3.(vi). The above said clause deals with the claim not on the basis of the order of suspension of work. Though the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the said claim falls within the purview of Clause 6.5.3.(vi), no material is placed before us to establish the same. On the basis of the facts mentioned in the claim (d), it cannot be construed that it would come under the purview of clause 6.5.3.(vi). We do not find any reason to review our judgment on this issue. 6. On the basis of the facts mentioned in the claim (d), it cannot be construed that it would come under the purview of clause 6.5.3.(vi). We do not find any reason to review our judgment on this issue. 6. With regard to the third issue is concerned, viz., claim (d) is barred by limitation, the learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon Section 3 and Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned counsel for the applicant would contend that the claim of the contractor was rejected as early as on 15.7.1986 and the entire work was completed only on 31.3.1988 and the arbitration was invoked only on 5.9.1989 and as such it is barred by Limitation. The learned counsel would further contend that the contractor ought to have invoked the Arbitration proceedings within three years from the date of 15.7.1986 and as such the said claim is not maintainable. In this regard, it is not disputed that no such plea was raised before the Arbitrator. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent has drawn our attention that the entire plea raised before the Arbitrator in the affidavit filed by the applicant herein which discloses that the plea of limitation was not at all raised. Even before the learned Judge in the petition to set aside the award, no such plea was raised. The learned counsel for the applicant has fairly admitted that even though a petition was filed before the learned Judge to raise additional ground with regard to the plea of Limitation, but no order was passed. Even though the main O.P. Itself was disposed of, no order was passed in the petition to raise additional ground. Merely because a petition was filed before the learned Judge to raise the plea of limitation, it will not enable the review applicant to raise the same plea before us. The applicant ought to have persuaded the petition filed before the learned Judge and obtained an order one way or other. In the absence of the said exercise, it is not open to the applicant to raise the said plea for the first time in the appeals. In fact, the applicant ought to have raised the said plea even before the Arbitrator, since the question of limitation has to be necessarily decided on facts by considering the various materials available on record. In fact, the applicant ought to have raised the said plea even before the Arbitrator, since the question of limitation has to be necessarily decided on facts by considering the various materials available on record. Since no finding was rendered either by the Arbitrator or by the learned Judge in this regard, we are not called upon to render any finding on the issue of limitation in the above appeals. Even though the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. J.V.BUDDHARAJA, GOVERNMENT & MINING CONTRACTOR [1993 (3) ARB. LR. 335(SC)], the said judgment is not helpful to the applicant for the foregoing reasons. Hence, the plea of limitation cannot be raised now. 7. In view of the above said reasons, the above said Review Applications are dismissed. No costs.