Delay condoned for Filing Appeal in Sec 34 of Arbitration Act

Limitation condoned by high coirt even after available of sufficient evidence available on record, because of non exhibition of some submitted important evidences . The dispatcher of arbitrator [ being msefc {msmed act}] sent the linked 2 arbitral awards copy in single envelope with single registered post. Now a photo copy of dispatch register of arbitrator, the receipt of registered post, communication with arbitrator where in attested copy of postmaster letter stating that the article has been delivered, all these documents along with affidavit was once put in during trial, and other time were submitted in a simple covering letter during enquiry stage, when the matter was remanded by high court for enquiring if the signed award copy has been received by the judgment debtor or not. All these evidences were even cross examined by either counsels to me, but were never properly "exhibited" nor were stamped. although lower court gave its verdict considering these documents only, and never ever any objection made for the non exhibition during trial or enquiry stage, but high court set aside the lower court order over non exhibition of documents and non examination of post master during enquiry. All these documents and proofs exist, post master can also come , but due to oversight of lower court advocate/ judge/ opposite counsel[ since opposite also didn’t object at the presentation time of evidences], high court pronounced the judgment against us, and said that the “unrebutted statement of denial of receipt of order copy sent by registered post could not be established”. hence allowed for hearing of section 34 appeal in dj court. When an evidence is produced in the court, is in court record , received by the opposite counsel, cross examined by both the counsel, during trial, judgemnt by the lower court is clearly mentioning the evidence, no objection by opposite counsel during trial, how can high court straight away deny that evidence give the verdict against? Is there any chance still left for us? how much? But we are aggrieved, we want that the case should not go back to section 34. what should we do?