ORDER In this matter, the only point for consideration is whether the impugned order passed by the Court below on the point of limitation is just and proper or not. As I see, the Court below had passed the impugned order based on the evidence on record. It was argued by the Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be held good, for according to him, the Arbitrator had sent copy of the award to the respondent as per the address set out in the suit hire purchase agreement-Ex. P. 2. He had also cited a reported decision of the Supreme Court in K Bhaskaran v Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another1. In the said case, as I see, the Supreme Court had held in para 24 as hereunder: "24. No doubt Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not require that the notice should be given only by "post". Nonetheless the principle incorporated in Section 27 (quoted above) can profitably be imported in a case where the sender has despatched the notice by post with the correct address written on it. Then it can be deemed to have been served on the sendee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non-service. Any other interpretation can lead to a very tenuous position as the drawer of the cheque who is liable to pay the amount would resort to the strategy of subterfuge by successfully avoiding the notice". 2. I do not think the said case has got application to the instant case in hand for the simple reason that the case of the respondent before this Court is that the Court below had contended that the address set down in the suit hire purchase agreement was subsequently filled up and as such, the same could not be acted upon. 3. As I see, in paras 11 and 18 of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the respondent had contended as hereunder: "11. 3. As I see, in paras 11 and 18 of the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the respondent had contended as hereunder: "11. The Arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction by placing the plaintiff ex parte on the basis of the alleged agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3 inasmuch as the alleged hire purchase agreement was signed by this plaintiff before the same was filled up by the office of the first defendant. Copy of the unfilled agreement is produced herewith and marked as Annexure. It is submitted that the address of the plaintiff has been wrongly filled up by the first defendant in order to defraud the plaintiff even though they were aware of the correct address of the plaintiff. 18. The award is not served on the plaintiff. The plaintiff came to know of the award when he received summons from the High Court of Bombay in Insolvency Notice No. 146 of 2901 on 7th March, 2002. Thereafter, a notice was served on the Advocate for the first defendant on 20th March, 2002 and subsequently on 23rd March, 2002 and obtained copy of the award and this application filed within three months from the date of knowledge of the award and hence, there is no delay". 4. Let apart, he has also filed a xerox copy of the unfilled copy of the hire purchase agreement while filing the petition before the Court below. 5. From the above pleadings, it is clear that the copy of the award passed by the Arbitrator was not served on him and that he had received a copy of the award only subsequently, when his Advocate appearing in the insolvency case (also filed by the petitioner-Finance Company) before the Bombay High Court addressed a letter to the Advocate for the petitioner, Finance Company for sending copy of the award and thus, the copy of the award was then sent to him through his lawyer as stated above. Therefore, it is clear that he had come to know of the award only subsequently on 23-3-2002, when he collected the copy of the award through his Advocate appearing for him in the insolvency case before the Bombay High Court. Therefore, it is clear that he had come to know of the award only subsequently on 23-3-2002, when he collected the copy of the award through his Advocate appearing for him in the insolvency case before the Bombay High Court. If that date is taken as the date of notice of service of the award, the petition filed by the petitioner on 1-6-2002 before the Court below is within 90 days from the date of the award. As a matter of fact, the respondent had given his evidence before the Court below in tune with his pleadings in paras 11 and 18 of the petition. 6. In this context, I have gone through the evidence adduced by the parties before the Court below. As I see, when Arbitration award came to be passed on 30-4-1999, an application to set aside the same came to be filed on 1-6-2002. That being the position, the petition filed before the Court below is well-within 90 days from the date of the award and as such, it was not time barred in any way. That being the position, the Trial Court was justified in holding that the petitioner had filed the petition before the Court below well-within the time stipulated under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. From the above evidence it is clear that the address set down, marked as Ex. P. 2 was as per the information secured by the branch office of the petitioner-Finance Company. Therefore, I am convinced to say that the address set out in Ex. P. 2-the hire purchase agreement was filled up subsequently based on the information collected with regard to the address of the respondent secured by the Bombay branch of the petitioner-Finance Company as deposed by D.W. 1 as stated above. Whatever be the case, it is clear from the pleadings as well as evidence of the respondent that the respondent was served with the copy of the award in the Arbitration Case only through his lawyer on 23-3-2002 and if that date is reckoned as the date of service of the award in question, the petition filed by the respondent before the Trial Court on 1-6-2002 was well-within 90 days from the date of service of notice. 8. 8. As I further see, in the cross-examination of the petitioner, examined as P. W. 1 the case of the petitioner was not only not put to the respondent, examined as D.W. 1 before the Court below, the furthermore, in the evidence adduced by the petitioner in examining one of its officers, examined as D.W. 1, the case as made out by the petitioner was not spoken to in clear terms before the Court below. 9. Here, I feel it appropriate to set out the deposition of D.W. 1, the same is as follows.- 10. It is pertinent to mention here that in the evidence of D.W. 1 he had deposed that the address of the respondent had been collected by the branch office of the petitioner-Finance Company at Bombay. In view of that piece of the evidence, I feel that the case of the respondent that the suit - Hire purchase agreement - Ex. P. 2 was subsequently filled up, stood fully corroborated by the evidence of the petitioner-Finance Company, examined as D.W. 1 before the Court below. 11. Therefore in my considered View, the Court below had passed a just order on the point of maintainability. 12. Hence, in my considered view, the instant civil revision petition filed by the petitioner-Finance Company is devoid of merit and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed in confirmation of the order passed by the Court below. 13. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. 14. Since the respondent had to come down all the way from Bombay not only to file the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to set aside the ex parte award, before the District Court at Udupi, but he is also made to come before this Court to defend himself in the instant civil revision petition, as such, I feel that compensatory cost has to be imposed on the petitioner-Finance Company. I moderately assess that cost at Rs. 10,000/-. 15. Let the said cost be now paid by the petitioner-Finance Company to the respondent within a period of three months from the date of disposal of this civil revision petition. I moderately assess that cost at Rs. 10,000/-. 15. Let the said cost be now paid by the petitioner-Finance Company to the respondent within a period of three months from the date of disposal of this civil revision petition. In the event, the petitioner Finance Company were to fail in the matter of payment of cost, as herein above directed, the respondent is at liberty to recourse to law to recover the same in the process known to law as if he holds a money decree for the likesum as against the petitioner-Finance Company. 16. In the result, the instant civil revision petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/- in confirmation of the impugned order passed by the Court below.