Judgment L.N.Mittal, J. 1. Contractor has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 24.04.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 2 as Arbitrator, whereby respondent No. 2 has stated that claim of the petitioner-contractor cannot be considered at the belated stage. This observation-was made on the basis of limitation period specified in clause 25 (vii) of the agreement. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the period of limitation, as prescribed by the Limitation Act, could not be curtailed by the clause in the agreement, and therefore, impugned order is not sustainable. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Midda v. State of Punjab and others reported as 2004 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 374 and a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Punj Lloyd Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India reported as 2009 (3) Arbitration Law Report 506 (Delhi). 3. Learned State counsel for the respondents has not cited any judgment to the contrary. In view of judgments referred to herein above, the petition is entitled to succeed. Facts in the case of Rajesh Kumar Midda (supra) were exactly the same. In the case of Punj Lloyd Ltd. (supra) also, this issue has been dealt with and same view has been taken. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and order dated 24.04.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent no.2 is set aside. Respondent no.2-Arbitrator is directed to decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law.