JUDGMENT : Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J. 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal, filed by the appellant-petitioner under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenges the order, dated 29.8.2019, passed by the Court of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal in CFR No. 3557 of 2019 in SR No. 480 of 2019 in unnumbered AOP of 2019. By way of the said order, the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal rejected the Arbitration OP filed by the appellant herein as time barred. 2. The facts, in nutshell, leading to the filing of the present appeal are as infra. (a) The respondent authorities, by invoking the provisions of National Highways Act, 1956 (for brevity "the NH Act"), acquired the property of the appellant herein, and the competent authority i.e., the Joint Collector, passed an Award, fixing the compensation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the competent authority, the appellant herein approached the District Collector/Arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The District Collector passed an order, enhancing the compensation by 70% vide Arbitration Award No. 16 of 2014, dated 11.7.2014. Against the said Award passed by the District Collector-Arbitrator, the appellant herein preferred Arbitration OP before the Court of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the following reliefs: (a) to allow the petition by setting aside the Arbitration Award No. 16 of 2014 in proceedings Rc.G1.1932/2013 dated 11.7.2014 of the Arbitrator and order for determining the market value of land under Commercial category and to pay compensation for structures, wells, trees etc., acquired viz., Ac. 1.59 cents in Survey No. 444/1 of Kowlur Village limits, Panyam Mandal, Kurnool District, at Rs. 8,93,33,000/- as per the claim of the petitioner dated 27.3.2011. (b) to order for payment of interest at 9% per annum on the excess amount determined from the date of taking possession till the date of deposit thereof, as per the provisions contained under N.H. Act, 1956. (c) to order for payment of land compensation for the balance extent of Ac. 0.03 cents of land acquired alongwith the above land to meet the ends of justice and such other reliefs as deemed fit in circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. (c) to order for payment of land compensation for the balance extent of Ac. 0.03 cents of land acquired alongwith the above land to meet the ends of justice and such other reliefs as deemed fit in circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. (b) The learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal by way of an order, dated 29.8.2019, rejected the arbitration OP as time barred. In the above background, the present appeal is filed, assailing the said order. 3. Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri S.S. Varma, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the impugned order is erroneous, contrary to law and against the spirit and object of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is further submitted that since in the affidavit of the appellant it is categorically stated that the respondents did not communicate the Award and only after coming to know about the passing of the Award by the District Collector, the appellant herein applied and the respondents on 18.4.2019 communicated the copy of the Award by ordinary post, as such, the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal ought to have directed the appeal to be numbered and should have issued the notice to the respondents to ascertain the reality and should not have rejected the appeal at threshold. 5. On the contrary, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and the learned Standing Counsel for National Highways, while supporting the impugned order, contended that there is no error, not there exists any infirmity, in the impugned order, and as the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal after thoroughly considering all the issues, rejected the Arbitration OP by way of the impugned order, the same is not amenable for any correction by this Court. 6. In the above background, now the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court are: 1. Whether the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal is justified in rejecting the appeal as time barred without issuing notice to the respondents? 2. Whether the impugned order warrants any interference of this Court? 7. 6. In the above background, now the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court are: 1. Whether the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal is justified in rejecting the appeal as time barred without issuing notice to the respondents? 2. Whether the impugned order warrants any interference of this Court? 7. The provisions of law, which are required to be referred for the purpose of adjudicating the issue in this case are Sections 2(h), 31(5) and 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. According to Section 2(h) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, 'party' means a party to an arbitration agreement. Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 mandates that after the arbitral Award is made, a signed copy shall be delivered to each party. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 deals with the application for setting aside the arbitral Award. Section 34(3) reads as follows: "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." As per Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, an application for setting aside is required to be made within three (3) months from the date on which the party making the application received the arbitral award. 8. In the instant case, the appellant herein filed an arbitration application against the order of the competent authority passed under the provisions of the NH Act. Thereafter, assailing the Arbitral Award passed by the District Collector-Arbitrator, the appellant herein approached the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal by way of Arbitration OP under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant herein categorically stated that the respondent authorities did not communicate the arbitral Award, dated 11.7.2014 passed by the District Collector-Arbitrator and on his application dated 16.3.2019, the District Collector-Arbitrator communicated the copy on 18.4.2019. The appellant herein categorically stated that the respondent authorities did not communicate the arbitral Award, dated 11.7.2014 passed by the District Collector-Arbitrator and on his application dated 16.3.2019, the District Collector-Arbitrator communicated the copy on 18.4.2019. It is also clear from a reading of the copy of the Arbitration OP filed by the appellant herein before the learned III Additional District Judge that alongwith the appeal, the appellant herein also filed a Photostat copy of the envelop in proof of the same. In fact, the copy of the said cover, which the appellant claims to have filed before the Court of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, is also filed alongwith the present appeal as a material paper and it clearly shows the date of receipt of copy of the Award as 18.4.2019. It is also significant to note that the copy of the Arbitral Award passed by the District Collector-Arbitrator also bears the date as 15.4.2019 in the last page. 9. The appellant herein filed Arbitration OP before the Court of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal on 19.6.2019 as mentioned supra. According to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the application needs to be filed within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of arbitral Award. 10. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal rejected the Arbitration OP as time barred by referring to Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. There is absolutely no controversy with regard to the settled proposition of law that the limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. When it is the categorical case of the appellant herein that the respondent authorities did not communicate the copy of the signed Award, as per Section 31(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and only on an application made by him, they furnished the copy by ordinary post on 18.4.2019, the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal ought not to have rejected the Arbitration OP without directing the same to be numbered. The learned Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, ought to have heard the issue and the justification shown and explanation offered in the appeal and should not have rejected the appeal at the threshold even without directing the same to be numbered. The learned Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, ought to have heard the issue and the justification shown and explanation offered in the appeal and should not have rejected the appeal at the threshold even without directing the same to be numbered. In the considered opinion of this Court, such course of action adopted by the Court of learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal is neither sustainable nor tenable in the eye of law. However, it is always open for the learned Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal to frame the limitation aspect also as one of the issues for consideration. Therefore, this Court has absolutely no hesitation to hold that the learned Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal grossly erred in rejecting the appeal as time barred at the threshold. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed, setting aside the order, dated 29.8.2019, passed by the Court of learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal in CFR No. 3557 of 2019 in SR No. 480 of 2019 in unnumbered AOP of 2019, and consequently, the said unnumbered AOP in CFR No. 3557 of 2019 in SR No. 480 of 2019 stands restored to file and the Court of learned in Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal shall number the appeal subject to compliance of other requirements, if any, and proceed with its adjudication as per law. There shall be no order as to costs of the C.M.A. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in the C.M.A. stand closed.