JUDGMENT : 1. Instant appeal has been filed by the appellants-objectors (for short ‘the objectors’) against the order dated 17.11.2017 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Arbitration Case No.175/2016 CIS No.86/2016, whereby the objections filed by the objectors challenging the award dated 09.01.2016 passed by sole Arbitrator, have been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the objectors submits that the trial court wrongly dismissed the objections filed by the objectors under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Learned counsel for the objectors also submits that the said order was passed by the trial court on 17.11.2017. The present appeal was filed by the objectors on 05.04.2019. The said appeal is time barred by 408 days but the objectors had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in which objectors had explained the delay caused in filing of the appeal. Learned counsel for the objectors also submits that application for procuring the impugned order was moved and copy was provided on 08.02.2019. After that, objectors sought the legal opinion and got approval from the Competent Authority. Thereafter, due to winter vacations, appeal could not be filed. So, delay in filing the appeal be condoned because delay is bona fide. Learned counsel for the objectors also drew the attention of this Court towards the order dated 11.09.2019 in which inadvertently, delay condoned was not mentioned but co-ordinate bench of this Court was satisfied and issued notices and also stayed the execution of the award dated 09.01.2016 and order dated 17.11.2017. So, application filed by the objectors under Section 5 of the Limitation Act be allowed. Learned counsel for the objectors has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) M/s Consolidated Engg. Enterprises Vs. Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2461/2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.10311/2005) decided on 03.04.2008 and (2) Delhi Development Authority Vs. M/s Satish Steel Traders & Ors. in RSA No.325/2014 decided on 02.02.2015. 3. Learned counsel for the non cross-objector-claimant has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the objectors and submitted that the present appeal was filed after a delay of 408 days. Learned counsel for the non cross-objector-claimant also submitted that application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in arbitration proceedings. 3. Learned counsel for the non cross-objector-claimant has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the objectors and submitted that the present appeal was filed after a delay of 408 days. Learned counsel for the non cross-objector-claimant also submitted that application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in arbitration proceedings. Learned counsel for the non cross-objector-claimant also submitted that lower court had passed the order on 17.11.2017. After that, non cross-objector-claimant had filed the execution petition before the Court in which objectors had put in appearance on 06.10.2018. So, delay in filing of the present appeal is not justified by the objectors. Learned counsel for the non cross-objector-claimant also submitted that there is no explanation regarding late procuring the copy of order. So, appeal filed by the objectors be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the non cross-objector-claimant has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. M/s Satish Chand Shivhare & Brothers in SLP (Civil) No.5301/2022 decided on 04.04.2022. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the objectors as well as learned counsel for the non cross-objector-claimant. 6. It is an admitted position that objections filed by the objectors were dismissed by the court below on 17.11.2017 and present appeal was filed by the objectors on 05.04.2019 after an inordinate delay of 408 days. Objectors had not explained day-today delay in filing the appeal. As per contention of the non cross-objector-claimant, non cross-objector-claimant had filed the execution petition in which objectors had put in appearance on 06.10.2018. No cogent and bona fide reason was given by the objectors for procuring the certified copy of the impugned order on 08.02.2019. So, in my considered opinion, objectors failed to explain day-to-day delay and reasons shown by the objectors for condonation of delay does not seem to be bona fide. So, application filed by the objectors regarding codonation of delay is dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal also stands dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.