JUDGMENT Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) - This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 27.08.2019 passed by the District Judge, Almora in Miscellaneous Case No.02 of 2019, by which the court below has rejected the application of the appellant for setting aside the award. 2. The admitted position in this case is that a contract was executed between the appellant and the respondent Corporation for maintenance and repairing of Hydel Colony, Ranikhet. Thereafter a dispute arose between the parties and the matter went before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator vide its order dated 18.09.2018 has given the award in favour of the appellant. 3. The application for setting aside the award lies with the Principal Civil Court in a District under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. But this application has to be made within a period of 90 days from the date of award. Admittedly it was not done during the period of 90 days but beyond a period of 90 days. 4. The court does have a power for entertaining an application for a further period of one month, beyond a period of three months, but no further. 5. The necessary provisions contained in sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , reads as under:- '34. Application for setting aside arbitral award.- (1). (2) (3) An application for setting aside may not be made after three months have elapsed from the date on which the party making that application had received the arbitral award or, if a request had been made under Section 33, from the date on which that request had been disposed of by the arbitral tribunal: 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.' 6. The important words in sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are 'the court does have a power to entertain an application for setting aside an award beyond a further period of thirty days'. Admittedly in the present case the application for setting aside the award was moved on 04.02.2019. 7. The important words in sub-section (3) of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are 'the court does have a power to entertain an application for setting aside an award beyond a further period of thirty days'. Admittedly in the present case the application for setting aside the award was moved on 04.02.2019. 7. The court after giving enough time to the appellant for holidays etc., for one month has rightly calculated the last day for moving such an application even after the extended period of one month as 31.01.2019. Admittedly this was not done and the application for setting aside the award was moved on 04.02.2019. 8. The Honble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Popular Construction AIR 2001 SC 4010 , it has been stated as under:- 'As far as the language of S.34 of the Arbitration is concerned, the crucial words are but not thereafter used in the proviso to sub- section (3)To hold that the court could entertain an application to set aside the award beyond the extended period under the proviso, would render the phrase but not thereafter wholly otiose. No principle of interpretation would justify such a result.' 9. In view thereof, this Court finds no anomaly in the order passed by the court below, which may call for any interference of this Court. 10. Consequently, the appeal from order fails and it is hereby dismissed.