ORDER : K. NATARAJAN, J. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner by challenging the order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Commercial Court, Ernakulam for having dismissed the IA No.1/2024 in unnumbered AOP of 2024 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground of time barred petition. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Adv. Sri. Neeraj Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed a claim petition before the Arbitrator and an award has been passed by the sole arbitrator on 03.07.2024 as against the petitioner, Kerala Water Authority represented by the Chief Engineer, Water Supply Project, Water works Campus, Jala Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner being the respondent in the arbitral proceedings, filed petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”). Along with the petition, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed for condoning the delay of 22 days in filing the petition. The respondent was notified and filed objection to the IA in the Commercial Court. After hearing the IA, the Commercial Court dismissed the IA i.e., the time barred petition, by impugned order which is under challenge. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Kerala Water Authority strenuously contended that the Commercial Court committed error in dismissing the application for condoning the delay, in fact there is no delay of 22 days. The award has been passed by the arbitrator on 03.07.2024, but the copy of the award on the stamp paper has been obtained by the petitioner only on 22.07.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition on 12.11.2024. If the petition is filed within 120 days as provided under Section 34 (3) of the Act wherein, it provides 90 days for filing the petition and another 30 days if sufficient cause is made out, petition is filed within time. Therefore, the petition came to be preferred on 112 th day which cannot be said to be beyond limitation. The trial court committed error in dismissing the application. 4. It is further contended that the copy of the award has not been served to the party as per Section 2 (1) (h) and 31 (5) of the Act. Therefore, the petition came to be preferred on 112 th day which cannot be said to be beyond limitation. The trial court committed error in dismissing the application. 4. It is further contended that the copy of the award has not been served to the party as per Section 2 (1) (h) and 31 (5) of the Act. Such being the case, the award was not at all signed by the petitioner by receiving the same. It is contended that the claim petition was filed against the Chief Engineer of the petitioner, Kerala Water Authority and at the time of passing the award, he was posted on election duty in Jammu & Kashmir and after getting the approval, the Deputy Engineer sworn in the affidavit and obtained authorization. Therefore, it cannot be said that the copy of the award has been served on the petitioner on 03.07.2024 and the copies obtained only on 22.07.2024. If the said date is calculated, it is within the 120 days. Therefore, there is no delay of beyond 120 days. He further contended that even if the award copy has been served on the counsel for the petitioner, that cannot be amounts to delivery of the award under Section 31 (5) of the Act. Therefore, even if the copy of the award served on his counsel on 03.07.2024 that cannot be said to be a valid service of the award to the petitioner. Hence, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside and prayed for allowing the petition. 5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied upon the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 KHC Online 6759 , Motilal Agarwala v. State of West Bengal, and another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (9) SCC 496, Benarsi Krishna Committee and Others v. Karmyogi Shelters Private Limited. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehementally objected the petition contending that there is inordinate delay in filing the petition beyond 120 days, and that was not properly explained in the affidavit sworn by the Deputy Engineer. Even as per the endorsement made by the arbitrator in the award, it is clearly mentioned that the award has been passed in the presence of both sides and copies of the award signed and served on both sides. Even as per the endorsement made by the arbitrator in the award, it is clearly mentioned that the award has been passed in the presence of both sides and copies of the award signed and served on both sides. Such being the case, the award copy has been served on the petitioner which clearly reveals that the award has been signed and obtained by the petitioner on 03.07.2024 but, not on 22.07.2024. Therefore, there is a delay in filing the petition beyond 120 days, which cannot be acceptable. Therefore, the Commercial Court rightly dismissed the application and there is no valid ground for interference in the impugned order. The learned counsel for the respondent also contended that there is no grounds urged by the petitioner in respect of serving of the award to the petitioner under Section 31 (5) of the Act either in the affidavit accompanying the IA or in the ground urged before this Court. Therefore, the argument urged by the learned counsel should not be acceptable. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard the arguments and perused the records. The points that arises for consideration are as follows:- i. Whether the order under challenge dismissing the petition on the ground of delay, which call for interference? ii. Whether the service of the copy of the award to the counsel on 03.07.2024 is deeded to be valid service of copy as per Section 31 (5) of the Act? 8. Having heard the arguments, considering the entire records of the petition and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not in dispute that the award has been passed by the sole Arbitrator on 03.07.2024. On perusal of the end of the award, the learned arbitral Tribunal has mentioned that the award has been dictated to the Secretary transcribed, typed and printed by him using the system and pronounced by him in the home office at Ernakulam, which is the place of arbitration in terms of Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, in the presence of both sides on the day of 3 rd of July 2025. On perusal of the endorsement, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is the award that has been passed or pronounced in the presence of both sides that means the petitioner also present. On perusal of the endorsement, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that it is the award that has been passed or pronounced in the presence of both sides that means the petitioner also present. Such being the case, it cannot be said that he has not received the award copy. It is pertinent to note that in the objection raised by the respondent before the court below on the application filed by the petitioner where at para 5, it is specifically mentioned that the award has been pronounced on 03.07.2024, the copy of the same was printed, signed and handed over to the counsel for the parties in person by the arbitrator. The very objection filed by the respondent before the Commercial court in IA No.1/2025 clearly reveals that the award copy has been served on the counsel for the petitioner, but nor to the petitioner. Now, coming to the contention of the counsel for the respondent whether the award copy served on the counsel is amounts to valid delivery of the award to the party as provided under Section 31 (5) of the Act. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Benarsi Krishna Committee & Ors . (supra) wherein, in a similar circumstances, the single judge of the Delhi High Court has held that the copy of the award has been delivered to the counsel is amounts to the delivery of the award to the party. Whereas, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has stated that delivering the award copy to the counsel cannot be considered as serving the copy to the party as per Section 2 (1) (h) of the Act, and the issue has been taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and finally upheld the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and held that serving the arbitral award to the counsel appearing for the party cannot be considered as serving the award under Section 31 (5) of the Act, in order to consider the limitation. The Hon'ble apex Court has held that the copy of the award shall be served on the party to the proceedings as per Section 2 (1) (h) of the Act and serving the copy of the award to the Advocate cannot be considered as the delivery of the award to the party as provided under Section 31 (5) of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held in Motilal Agarwala (supra) that the award has been delivered to the party to the proceedings as per section 31 (5) of the Act. 9. Though there is no ground of under Section 31 (5) of the Act, has been urged by the petitioner counsel but the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that law cannot be urged as a ground, already fact has been urged in the petition, not law. 10. Hence, I am of the view that the serving the copy of the award to the counsel on 03.07.2024 cannot be considered as delivering the award to the party as per Section 2 (1) (h) of the Act, in order to consider the award was delivered as per Section 31 (5) of the Act. On the other hand, even considering the documents, there is no document produced by the respondent to show that the petitioner who is the Chief Engineer who was received the copy of the award on 03.07.2024. On the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that the Managing Director of the petitioner, said to be a competent authority to take a decision, has been deputed to the election duty at Jammu & Kashmir and admittedly the award has been not served on the petitioner. However, as per the above judgment, the copy of the award has been obtained by the petitioner on 22.07.2024. Therefore, if the award has been received or obtained by the petitioner on 22.07.2024 and the petition came to be filed on 12.11.2024 it is within 120 days or not beyond 120 days as provided under Section 34 (3) of the Act. 11. Therefore, I am of the view that the order under challenge passed by the trial Court, holding that the application filed beyond 120 days cannot be acceptable. On the other hand, it is within the 120 days. Therefore, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. 11. Therefore, I am of the view that the order under challenge passed by the trial Court, holding that the application filed beyond 120 days cannot be acceptable. On the other hand, it is within the 120 days. Therefore, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. i. The order dated 31.01.2025 in I.A.No.1/2024 in unnumbered AOP of 2024 of the Commercial Court, Ernakulam is hereby set aside. ii. The delay petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and condoned the delay in filing the petition. iii. The Commercial Court is directed to assign the number to the AOP and proceed in accordance with law.