Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 7.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has allowed an application filed by the respondent-applicant under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, the present appeal has been filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act", for short). 2. The Registry has raised an objection about the maintainability of the appeal. According to the Registry, the appeal is time-barred by twenty-three days, and no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963has been filed for condoning the delay. The learned counsel for the appellant has filed a reply to the said objection. Vide order dated 29.7.2010, this Court had sought explanation of the stamp reporter for having raised the objection. For, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, Section 37 of the Act does not prescribe a period of limitation. Moreover, Section 43 of the Act does not deal with an appeal, but deals with arbitration proceedings. Pursuant to the order dated 29.7.2010, the concerned Section officer has submitted his explanation through the Deputy Registrar (Judl.). 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that Section 37 of the Act empowers a person to file an appeal against an order granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9 of the Act. Since the application under Section 9 of the Act was allowed by the learned Judge, without issuing any notice to the appellant, the appellant is entitled to file an appeal under Section 37 of the Act. However, Section 37 of the Act does not prescribe any period of limitation. Therefore, the general law of limitation as contained in Limitation act, 1963 is inapplicable. Hence, the Registry is not justified in claiming that the present appeal is delayed by twenty-three days. In order to buttress his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Jagson Intl. Ltd. (2005(3) Arb. LR 167 (Bombay)) and in the case of Bageshwari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. Shivajirao S/o Gapalrao Hujare & Anr. (2004(3) Arb. LR 602 (Bombay)). 4. On the other hand the concerned Stamp Reporter has submitted his explanation. According to this explanation, the Rajasthan High Court had made the Rajasthan Arbitration Rules, 2003. Ltd. (2005(3) Arb. LR 167 (Bombay)) and in the case of Bageshwari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. Shivajirao S/o Gapalrao Hujare & Anr. (2004(3) Arb. LR 602 (Bombay)). 4. On the other hand the concerned Stamp Reporter has submitted his explanation. According to this explanation, the Rajasthan High Court had made the Rajasthan Arbitration Rules, 2003. According to Rule 11 of the said Rules, the provisions of CPC, specially under Order 41 CPC, apply to the proceedings before a Court in so far as they may be applicable thereto. Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decree. Therefore, the provisions of Order 41 CPC would necessarily have to be read as applicable to Section 37 of the Arbitration Act which also deals with the appeals. Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes the period of limitation. For, an appeal to be filed under CPC to a High Court from any decree or order it states that the period of limitation is ninety days from the date of the decree or order. In the present case, the impugned order was passed on 7.12.2009. However, the appeal was not filed till 31.3.2010. Therefore, obviously the appeal has been filed after 23 days, beyond the period of limitation. Hence, the Stamp Reporter humbly submits that he is justified in raising the objection. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the explanation offered by the concerned stamp reporter. 6. Section 37 of the Act empowers a person to file an appeal against an order granting or refusing to grant any measure under Section 9 of the Act. According to the appellant, he has filed the appeal as the impugned order has been passed behind his back without giving him a notice. Thus, he is certainly entitled to file the appeal under Section 37 of the Act. However, the moot question before this Court is whether the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Act is subject to a period of limitation or not? 7. Section 82 of the Act empowers the High Courts to make rules consistent with the Arbitration Act as to all proceedings before the Court under the Act. Such proceedings would obviously include an appeal filed before this Court under Section 37 of the Act. 7. Section 82 of the Act empowers the High Courts to make rules consistent with the Arbitration Act as to all proceedings before the Court under the Act. Such proceedings would obviously include an appeal filed before this Court under Section 37 of the Act. In exercise of the power bestowed upon this Court under Section 82 of the Act, this High Court had promulgated the Rajasthan Arbitration Rules, 2003. Rule 11 of the Rules, 2003 is as under :- "11. (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act or these rules, the following provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and as amended by C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1999 and 2002 shall apply to the proceedings before a Court in so far as they may be applicable thereto, namely, (i) Secs. 28, 31, 35, 35-A, 35-B, 107, 133, 135, 148-A, 151 & 152 and (ii) Or. III, V, VI, IX, XIII, XIV, XVI, to XIX, XXIV, XLI and XLII. (2)(a) For the purpose of facilitating application of the provisions referred to under sub-rule (1) the Court may construe them with such alterations not affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper to adopt to the matters before it; and (b) The Court may for sufficient reasons proceed otherwise than in accordance with the said provisions if it is satisfied hat interest of the parties shall not thereby be prejudiced." 8. A bare perusal of Rule 11 of the rules clearly reveals that Order 41 CPC is applicable to the appeals filed under the Act. Therefore, necessarily one would have to consider the period of filing an appeal under the Limitation Act. For, Limitation Act deals with appeals filed under Order 41 CPC. According to Article 116(a) of the Limitation Act, the period prescribed is ninety days from the date of decree or order. Therefore, appeal under Section 37 of the act would have to be filed in accordance with Article 116(a) of the Limitation Act i.e., it has to be filed within ninety days from the date of the order. Admittedly, the present appeal has been filed twenty-three days after the period of limitation of ninety days was over. Therefore, the registry is certainly justified in raising the objection that the appeal has been filed twenty-three days after the period of limitation and no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed therewith. 9. Admittedly, the present appeal has been filed twenty-three days after the period of limitation of ninety days was over. Therefore, the registry is certainly justified in raising the objection that the appeal has been filed twenty-three days after the period of limitation and no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed therewith. 9. Neither the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (supra), nor the case of Bageshwari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (supra) comes to the rescue of the appellant. A bare perusal of both the cases clearly reveal that apparently the Bombay High Court has not formulated the Arbitration Rules under Section 82 of the Act. therefore, the rules do not prescribe any period of limitation, nor do they claim that Order 41 CPC would be applicable to the proceedings before the High Court. However, the Rajasthan High Court has promulgated the Arbitration Rules in 2003. Thus, the present case would be covered under the Rules of 2003. Thus, the present case would be covered under the Rules of 2003. Therefore, the appellant does not derive any benefit from the rulings of the Bombay High Court wherein their Lordships of the Bombay High court are of the opinion that since Section 37 of the Act does not prescribe a period of limitation, the Limitation Act is inapplicable to an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Act. Since Rajasthan High Court does have its own rules of arbitration, the said case law is inapplicable to the present case. 10. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the objection raised by the Registry are legally justified. Hence, the objection raised by the Registry is sustained. However, as the appellant has sought some time to file application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay, this Court grants two weeks time to the appellant to file the necessary application. With these observations, the objection is, hereby, sustained.