Judgment 1. This application has been filed for condonation of delay of 5 days in filing the restoration application. In view of reasoning given in the application, it is allowed and delay of 5 days in filing the restoration application is condoned. 2. This application has been filed under Order 9 Rule 4 CPC for restoration of the revision petition, which was dismissed for nonprosecution on December 14, 2005. Application is accompanied by an affidavit. In view of reasoning given in the application, it is allowed and the civil revision is restored to its original number. On request, revision petition is taken up for hearing. 3. Vide judgment under challenge, objection application, filed by the respondent against the award dated November 19, 1976, was dismissed by the trial Court. He, however, succeeded in appeal. 4. Hence this revision petition. It is apparent from the records that the Arbitrator has awarded an amount of Rs.20,744.70 paise in favour of the petitioner. 5. On an application, moved by the respondent, award was filed in court, to which objections were raised by the respondent. Trial Court, after recording evidence of both the parties, dismissed objection application and made award dated November 19, 1976, rule of the Court. In appeal, judgment of the trial Court was reversed. Records reveal that the appellate Court below, by taking note of statements made by the respondent, and also entries made in the measurement book at Sr. No.1269 on November 24, 1967, rightly held that in view of provisions of Sec.25-A of the agreement, the reference made to the Arbitrator was not within limitation. It has also been noticed by the appellate Court below that the trial Court, by taking note of the date of passing the final bill in November, 1971, as a date of its preparation, has wrongly held that the reference was within time. It has also been noticed that the question of limitation was raised before the Arbitrator but he failed to adjudicate upon the same and in this manner, the Arbitrator misconducted himself and as such the appellate Court below was justified in setting aside the award. No substantial question of law has been raised, which may necessitate any interference in pure findings of fact. Dismissed.