ORDER 1. The appellant has filed this appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the order passed by the XIIth Additional District Judge, Indore in Arbitration Case No. 712004 by which the award of Rs. 4,75,000/- passed by the Arbitrator has been affirmed and the objections filed under section 34 of the said Act have been rejected. 2. The appeal is barred by 102 days for which application IA 7890/ 2007 under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condonation. 3. The preliminary objection of Shri Thanewala to the application is that the application is not maintainable at all in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Popular Construction Company [ (2001) 8 SCC 470 ] holding that provisions of section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act do not get attracted as regards the objections under section 34 of the Act in view of specific exclusion of its applicability which can be inferred from the words "but not thereafter". Section 34 of the Act prescribes period of limitation for filing objection thereunder but the Proviso to sub-section (3) of section 34 of the Act restricts the period for objection to three months, extendable by thirty days, followed by the words "but not thereafter". For a clear understanding of the provision, the Proviso aforesaid is reproduced hereunder : "Provided that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the said period of three months it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter." 4. It is clear that the Supreme Court in considering the effect of the word "but not thereafter", has come to the conclusion that it amounts to specific exclusion of the applicability of section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act with the result provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 of the said Act are not attracted. 5. In the present case, we are not dealing with a case under section 34 where objections have not been filed within the period stated therein or the extendable period. The appeal has been filed under section 37 of the Act which reads as under: 37. 5. In the present case, we are not dealing with a case under section 34 where objections have not been filed within the period stated therein or the extendable period. The appeal has been filed under section 37 of the Act which reads as under: 37. Appealable orders.-- (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely: (a) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9; (b) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34. (2) An appeal shall also lie to a Court from an order granting of the arbitral Tribunal.-- (a) accepting the plea referred in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 16; or - (b) granting or refusing to grant an interim measure under section 17. (3) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court. 6. The above provision does not make a specific exclusion as is contained in section 34 of the Act and the fact that no period of limitation has been prescribed makes it luculent that it is the general period of limitation for appeal within which the appeal is required to be filed. At the same time, since there is no exclusion by any express or implied term contained under this section, it cannot be said that applicability of the provisions of Limitation Act has been excluded. We are, therefore, of the view that an application for condonation under section 5 of the Limitation Act is maintainable in cases where the appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has not been filed within limitation. 7. Learned counsel has pointed out that since the appellant had closed down their Indore Branch, in transferring the record, there occurred delay with the result the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Considering that the appellants had closed their Branch at Indore and during the period of interregnum while the record was being transferred, the order passed by the Court did not come to notice, we are inclined to accept the prayer for condonation of delay. 8. Considering that the appellants had closed their Branch at Indore and during the period of interregnum while the record was being transferred, the order passed by the Court did not come to notice, we are inclined to accept the prayer for condonation of delay. 8. Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay of 102 days in filing this appeal is condoned subject to the condition that the appellant shall pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the respondent within a fortnight from today. If the cost is not paid within a fortnight, the appeal itself shall be liable to be dismissed. .