MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J ( 1 ) DISPUTES having arisen between the parties, the same were referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. A. Singsit, Executive Director and Secretary of Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. The learned sole arbitrator entered into the reference and passed an award, which was published on 10. 4. 1996. The learned sole arbitrator by the aforesaid award awarded an amount of Rs. 4,32,741. 21p in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved of the aforesaid award, an application under Sections 30 and 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act was filed by the respondent in this Court. ( 2 ) THE aforesaid objection was listed before the Court on 18. 2. 1999. However, when the matter was called out for hearing by the Court, none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Consequently, the objections filed against the award dated 10. 4. 1996 were dismissed in default and for non-prosecution and the award dated 10. 4. 1996 was made a rule of the Court. It was also ordered that in addition the petitioner would get interest on the sum awarded by the arbitrator @ 12% per annum from the date of the decree till realisation. The award was thus made a decree. ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENT thereto an application was filed by the petitioner, which was registered as IA No. 4020/1999. The said application was filed under Section 151 CPC by the petitioner praying for grant of interest from the date of the award i. e. from 10. 4. 1996. The aforesaid application registered as IA No. 4020/1999 came up for consideration before the Court on 28. 4. 2000 when none appeared on behalf of the petitioner / applicant and accordingly the said application was dismissed for non-prosecution. It further transpires from the records that a review application was filed by the respondent in this Court on 21. 4. 2001 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid review application. Notices were issued on the said applications seeking for review and also for condonation of delay in filing the said review application whereupon the petitioner has also entered appearance through counsel. ( 4 ) I have heard the counsel for the parties at length on both the applications. Notices were issued on the said applications seeking for review and also for condonation of delay in filing the said review application whereupon the petitioner has also entered appearance through counsel. ( 4 ) I have heard the counsel for the parties at length on both the applications. It is contended in the application under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC that although an order was passed by this Court making the award a rule of the court by dismissing the objections filed by the respondent under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 in default and for non-prosecution, evidently the said order was passed in absence of the respondent and its counsel. It is alleged that neither the respondent nor its counsel had any knowledge of the aforesaid order dated 18. 2. 1999 till a notice of petition for execution was received on 27. 11. 2000. It is also submitted that an objection regarding the jurisdiction of this Court was raised, which is also recorded in the order dated 3. 12. 1997 and a report of the registry / office was also called for, which was pending and, therefore, the order and the decree which was passed on 18. 2. 1999 was without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the respondent came to know of the passing of the order and the decree dated 18. 2. 1999 only on 27. 11. 2000. It is stated that after receipt of the said information, the respondent applied for inspection of the Court file again and again but the file was not made available immediately and was made available only on 18. 4. 2001 and after inspection of the same, the application seeking for the review and for condonation of delay were immediately filed. On the aforesaid pleading the respondent prays for review of the order by condoning the delay in filing the said application. ( 5 ) THE respondent did not appear before this Court on 18. 2. 1999 to press the objections and, therefore, this Court had no other option but to dismiss the same for the reasons of default and for non-prosecution. Although the aforesaid order came to be passed on 18. 2. 1999, the aforesaid applications seeking for review and condonation of delay came to be filed only on 21. 4. 2001. 2. 1999 to press the objections and, therefore, this Court had no other option but to dismiss the same for the reasons of default and for non-prosecution. Although the aforesaid order came to be passed on 18. 2. 1999, the aforesaid applications seeking for review and condonation of delay came to be filed only on 21. 4. 2001. No sufficient reason or ground has been given in the application for explaining the delay as to why no enquiry was made either by the respondent or its counsel from the registry on the fate of the aforesaid objections, which were filed by it prior to 18. 4. 2001. The aforesaid delay of more than two years still remains unexplained. Negligence and laches are apparent on the face of the records. ( 6 ) IN my considered opinion, no ground not to speak of reasonable ground is made out by the respondent in the application praying for condonation of delay in filing the said application. ( 7 ) THE award, which is passed by the arbitrator, is a non-speaking award. No reason has been given by the arbitrator for awarding the aforesaid amount of Rs. 4,32,741. 21p in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. It is also not pointed out that there was any obligation under any agreement between the parties and the arbitrator was required to give a reasoned and speaking award. In absence of such requirements, it is open for the arbitrator to give a non-speaking and unreasoned award. When it is a case of a non-speaking award, the scope of challenging the said award is restricted and limited, for it is not possible for the Court to scrutinise and delve into as to what transpires in the mind of the learned arbitrator. Reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. and ors reported in 2002 (65) DRJ 272 wherein it is held as under: "in the backdrop of the above legal position when the present award is scrutinised it is apparent on the face of the record that the arbitrator has given his award by recording his conclusion only and no reason has been assigned by the arbitrator for coming to the aforesaid conclusion. Therefore, the aforesaid award is a non-speaking award and, therefore, the possibility of interference of the court to such award is very restricted and limited, for it is not possible for this court to scrutinise and examine the mental process of the arbitrator, which led to the conclusions arrived at by him while giving his award. " ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, there is hardly any scope in the present case for interfering with the award passed by the arbitrator. It is stated by the respondent in its application seeking for review which is also reiterated by the counsel for the respondent that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to pass any order in respect of the aforesaid award as the amount involved was only Rs. 4,32,741. 21p. The said contention is without any merit as the respondent itself filed the objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act in this Court on which notice was issued and orders were passed. Even otherwise, in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, the award was filed in this Court by the arbitrator on which notice was issued, on receipt of which objections were also filed by the respondent under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. ( 9 ) IN this connection, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Jaswant Lal Chug and Bros. v. N. C. E. R. T. and Anr. reported in 107 (2003) DLT 620 (DB) wherein it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that all successive applications are to be filed in the same Court where the award was filed and an order was passed by that Court. ( 10 ) HAVING regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that there is no reasonable explanation given by the respondent in the application filed praying for condonation of delay. There is also no ground made out for reviewing the order and decree dated 18. 2. 1999. ( 11 ) BOTH the applications are accordingly dismissed and the order dated 18. 2. 1999 is upheld. --- *** --- .