JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J: OMP(M) No.03 of 2017 By way of this application, a prayer has been made for condonation of delay in filing the Objections against the Award dated 06.04.2016 passed by learned Arbitrator under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The contention of the applicant is that the Award under challenge was passed by the Arbitrator on 06.04.2016 and signed copy of the same was dispatched by the learned Arbitrator to the office of the Advocate representing the applicant on 08.04.2016, who received the same on 12.04.2016. After receipt of the same, the counsel of the applicant intimated him on 14.04.2016 telephonically and asked him to collect the copy of the Award. As the applicant at the relevant time was residing at Amethi, Utter Pradesh, on account of his business activity over there, after receipt of the intimation from the counsel, he visited the office of the counsel on 20th October, 2016 and received the copy of the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator and thereafter took steps to file Objections. On these facts and submissions, prayer has been made for condonation of delay in filing the objections, as according to him, as from the date when copy of the Award was received by him from his counsel, the Objections are within limitation, if benefit of proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 34 is extended to the applicant. 2. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that in the present case, limitation has to be construed as from the date when signed copy of the Award was delivered to learned counsel representing the applicant. The signed copy of the Award was received by learned counsel on 08.04.2016 and not on 12.04.2016, as would be evident from the postal receipts which have been appended with the petition. Be that as it may, having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my considered view, there is no compliance of the provisions of Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ?the 1996 Act?) by the learned Arbitrator. 3. Section 31(5) of the 1996 Act reads as under: ?31(5). After the arbitral award is made, a signed copy shall be delivered to each party.? 4. 3. Section 31(5) of the 1996 Act reads as under: ?31(5). After the arbitral award is made, a signed copy shall be delivered to each party.? 4. There is no ambiguity in the statutory provisions that after the Arbitral Award is made, a signed copy shall be delivered to each party. The word ?party? has been interpreted by the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Tecco Trichy Engineers & Contractors, (2005) 4 SCC 239 , State of Maharashtra Vs. ARK Builders (P) Ltd. (2011) 4 SCC 616 and Benarsi Krishna Committee and others Vs. Karmyogi Shelters Private Limited, (2012) 9 Supreme Court Cases 496 as ?party himself and his or her agent?. In fact, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Benarsi Krishna Committee and others Vs. Karmyogi Shelters Private Limited (supra) has held that the expression ?party?, as defined in Section 2(1)(h) of the 1996 Act, clearly indicates a person who is a party to an arbitration agreement. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that said definition is not qualified in any way so as to include the agent of the party to such agreement and any reference, therefore, made in Section 31(5) and Section 34(2) of the 1996 Act can only mean the party himself and his or her agent, or Advocate empowered to act on the basis of a Vakalatnama. Hon'ble Court has further held that proper compliance with Section 31(5) would mean delivery of a signed copy of the Arbitral Award on the party himself and not on his Advocate, which gives the party concerned the right to proceed under Section 34(3) of the aforesaid Act. 5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-17 of Benarsi Krishna Committee and others (supra) has held as under: ?17. In the instant case, since a signed copy of the award had not been delivered to the party itself and the party obtained the same on 15.12.2004, and the petition under Section 34 of the Act was filed on 3.2.2005, it has to be held that the said petition was filed within the stipulated period of three months as contemplated under Section 34(3) of the aforesaid Act. Consequently, the objection taken on behalf of the petitioner herein cannot be sustained and, in our view, was rightly rejected by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.? 6. Consequently, the objection taken on behalf of the petitioner herein cannot be sustained and, in our view, was rightly rejected by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.? 6. The factual matrix which now emerges from what has been discussed hereinabove is that the signed copy of the Award was not delivered to the applicant/petitioner by the Arbitrator strictly in consonance with the provisions of Section 35(5) of the 1996 Act. However, fact of the matter remains that a signed copy of the said Award was subsequently received by the applicant-petitioner through counsel to whom a signed copy of the Award was sent by the learned Arbitrator. As far as delay in filing the petition is concerned, it has been duly explained by the applicant/objector in this application that after receipt of the copy of the Award from his counsel on 20.04.2016, he was called by the Department for settlement of the dispute on various dates and one of such date fixed for the said purpose in the office of Secretary (Public Works) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh was 07.07.2016. Due to declaration of holiday on the said date on account of Idu'L Fitr, next date fixed was 11.07.2016 followed with 18.07.2016, but when despite various dates, no fruitful result was coming, the applicant/objector filed objections without any further delay. These are the reasons mentioned in the application as to why the objections could not be filed within limitation. 7. A perusal of the reply filed to the application demonstrates that these facts have not been denied in so many words by the non-applicant, however, the stand taken in the reply is that despite various communications made by the non-applicant to the applicant, he did not turn up for amicable settlement and no settlement could be arrived at. 8. Be that as it may, one thing which is evident from the averments made in the application and the reply filed to the same is that after receipt of the copy of the Award by the applicant/objector, there was some endeavour being made between the parties for amicable settlement of the issue and this, in my considered view, satisfactorily explains the delay in filing the petition. 9. Now, there are two options available before this Court. 9. Now, there are two options available before this Court. The first option is that these proceedings can be closed with the direction/observation that as and when a signed copy of the Award is delivered by the learned Arbitrator to the applicant, he can invoke the statutory remedies available to him in accordance with law. Alternatively, as from the date when copy of the Award was received by the applicant/petitioner, as the petition is within limitation, the same can be ordered to be heard in accordance with law after condoning the delay in filing the petition. In my considered view, it will be in the interest of justice in case latter option is followed by the Court. This is for the reason that even if first option is opted by the Court, then the applicant/petitioner after receipt of the certified copy of the Award will have to come before the Court under Section 34 of the 1996 Act and that has already been done by him by way of filing the present petition. Therefore, in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, this Court opts for hearing of the present petition by condoning the delay in filing the Objections. This is also in consonance with the findings returned in para-17 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Benarsi Krishna Committee and others (supra). Accordingly, this application is allowed and delay in filing the Objections is condoned. Application stands disposed of.