Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. On a request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset, the present petition is treated to be a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. (for short Markfed) is the petitioner before this Court. A dispute arose between Markfed and respondent No. 1 M/s Hamira Rice Trading Company. The dispute was referred for adjudication to the arbitration. The Arbitrator gave his award on December 5, 1984. An intimation in this regard was given to the Markfed by the Arbitrator through a notice which was dated December 31, 1984. An application for making the aforesaid award a rule of the Court was filed by the Markfed on March 2, 1985. 3. At this stage, it may be noticed that M/s Hamira Rice Trading Company was arrayed as respondent No. 1 in the said petition. The Arbitrator Shri G.S. Bhatia was arrayed as respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 appeared before the Civil Court. It raised various objections against the aforesaid award. One of the objections raised was that the petition filed by the Markfed was barred by limitation, inasmuch as it had not been filed within 30 days of the receipt of the notice from the Arbitrator. 4. The Arbitrator had also put in appearance before the trial Court. He produced the entire record of the proceedings and the original award before the Civil Court. 5. The learned trial Court held that the petition filed by the Markfed for making the award a rule of the Court having been filed beyond the period of 30 days was barred by limitation. Accordingly, the aforesaid petition was dismissed. The matter was taken up in appeal by the Markfed. The learned Additional District Judge, upheld the order of the trial Court. It was still held that petition filed by the Markfed was barred by limitation. 6. The orders of the Courts below have been impugned by the Markfed through the present revision petition. 7. Mr. The matter was taken up in appeal by the Markfed. The learned Additional District Judge, upheld the order of the trial Court. It was still held that petition filed by the Markfed was barred by limitation. 6. The orders of the Courts below have been impugned by the Markfed through the present revision petition. 7. Mr. Alka Sarin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Courts below had clearly ignored the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act, inasmuch as the Arbitrator himself was a party respondent No. 2 before the Civil Court and consequently he had produced the entire records of the arbitration proceedings and also produced the original award. In these circumstances, it has been argued that the process of filing the award in the Civil Court should have been construed from the a foresaid d ate o f filing of the award and the proceedings before the Civil Court. 8. No-one appears on behalf of the respondents despite notice. Accordingly, the respondents are ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. 9. The controversy in question in squarely covered by the judgment of the learned of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Punjab Mandi Board v. Gurbax Singh, 2003(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 117, wherein it has been held that the filing of an award is complete only when all documents are produced in the Court along with the original award and mere submission of a signed copy of the award by one of the parties in the court, is not enough. Even I had an occasion to take a similar view in Civil Revision No. 2530 of 1988 decided on September 30, 2005. 10. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 was the arbitrator himself. He had produced the award and the record of the original proceedings before the trial Court during the course of proceedings. In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act are fully attracted. Consequently, the limitation was liable to be construed from the aforesaid date and the petition filed by the Markfed, could not be treated to be beyond limitation. 11. Accordingly, the present revision petition is allowed, the orders of the Courts below are set aside and the award dated on December 5, 1984 is directed to be made rule of the Court.