JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this application, prayer has been made by the applicants for condonation of delay in filing the Objection Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against the award passed by the learned Arbitrator, dated 07.10.2019. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this application are that learned Arbitrator has passed an award in a Claim Petition filed by the non­applicant (Chander Shekhar). This award was announced on 07.10.2019. The signed copy of the said award was received by the applicants on 22.10.2019. Alongwith petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act assailing the award, application has been filed under Section 34 (3) of the said Act praying for condonation of delay in filing the Objection Petition. 3. As already mentioned hereinabove, the signed copy of the award was received by the applicants on 22.10.2019, but the petition alongwith the application for condonation of delay was initially filed in the Registry of this Court on 06.04.2022. 4. In terms of the provisions of Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to the award can be filed within three months from the date on which a party making an application as received the arbitral award and if a request has been made under Section 33 of the Act from the date on which that request has been disposed of by the Arbitral Tribunal. Proviso provides that if the Court is satisfied that the applicant is prevented by sufficient cause for making the application within the period of three months, it may entertain the application within a further period of thirty days, but not thereafter. 5. The application praying for condonation of delay has been opposed by the non­applicants/claimants on the ground that as the application was filed beyond the period of thirty days after the expiry of three months, therefore, this Court has no power in law to allow the application filed for condonation of delay. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the application filed for condonation of delay. 7. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the application filed for condonation of delay. 7. In terms of the averments made in the application praying for condonation of delay in filing the Objection Petition, one of the reasons assigned therein is that after the pronouncement of the award, the claimants filed an application on 02.11.2019 under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking amendment/ rectification of the award. The applicants were put to notice of the same and they filed their response thereto. According to the applicants, on one hand the claimants filed an application for rectification of the award, but on the other hand they also filed an Execution Petition which forced the applicants to file the objections under Section 34 of the Act despite the fact that the award has not yet attained finality. 8. It is a matter of record that after the award was announced by the learned Arbitrator, the claimants filed an application under Section 33 (1) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 9. When the Execution Petition was heard by this Court on 04.03.2022, the following order was passed:­ “By way of this execution petition, the petitioner is praying for the execution of the award passed by the learned Arbitrator in Arbitration, titled as Chander Shekhar vs. State of H.P. & Ors., dated 07.10.2019. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the present execution petition is pre­mature for the reason that after the pronouncement of the award, an application was filed by the present petitioner before the learned Arbitrator seeking correction in award dated 07.10.2019, which is still pending adjudication and as per him, in the absence of the said award attaining finality post adjudication of this application, the judgment debtor is not in a position to seek its legal remedies against the award in issue and the same also renders the present execution petition infructuous as the same is pre­mature. Mr. Mr. Rakesh Manta, learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing the attention of this Court to Section 33 of the 1996 Act, has submitted that in the event of a party approaching the learned Arbitrator within 30 days from the date of receipt of arbitral award, then said application has to be decided by the learned Arbitrator within the time frame as is stipulated in the said section which in the present case has not been done by the learned Arbitrator and this has the effect that now the learned Arbitrator has become functus officio. He further submitted that as per his instructions, the petitioner does not intends to press the application so filed under Section 33 before the learned Arbitrator and the same be taken to have been withdrawn by the present petitioner. Statement of learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. At this stage learned Additional Advocate General submits that in view of this development, hearing of this execution petition be deferred by four weeks to enable him to take appropriate recourse against the award in accordance with law, failing which appropriate order be passed in the execution petition. Ordered accordingly. As prayed for, list on 07.04.2022. Parties shall at liberty to apprise of the statement so made on behalf of the petitioner before this Court today by producing the order passed by this Court before the learned Arbitrator.” 10. Thus, in terms of order dated 04.03.2022, the application filed by the claimant under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was withdrawn by the claimant in terms of the statement made before this Court, which has to be treated as the date of decision of the application. As from the date when this statement was made, Objection Petition under Section 34 of the Act was filed within a period of three months, though alongwith this application for condonation of delay as the applicants were under this impression that the objections were time barred. 11. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 34 (3) of the 1996 Act once again. 11. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 34 (3) of the 1996 Act once again. In terms of sub­section (3) of Section 34 of the Act, the limitation of three months for filing the objections against the award commences from the date on which the party making the application as 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”. 12. In this case as already mentioned hereinabove, the application under Section 33 of the Act by the claimant was withdrawn as not pressed during the pendency of the Execution Petition before this Court on 04.03.2022. 13. That being the case, it is this date from which three months time has to be counted and admittedly as from the said date, the Objection Petition was filed within three months, meaning thereby that the petition was not time barred and was filed within the period of limitation. 14. Therefore, as the objections were filed by the applicants within ninety days as from the date when the application filed by the claimant under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was withdrawn by the complainant, this Court holds that the Objection Petition was filed within the period of limitation. The application stands disposed of in above terms. Registry is directed to register the Arbitration Petition and list the same for consideration on 27.03.2024.