( 2 ) THIS Court ordered Notice Before admission on 6-1-2006 and granted interim order for a limited period which was subsequently extended.

( 3 ) THE revision petitioner herein/ judgment-debtor/defendant filed E. A. No. 256/ 2005 in E. P. No. 717/2004 in O. S. No. 400/97 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, warangal under Sections 47 and 151 of the code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "code" for the purpose of convenience) praying for dismissal of the e. P. as having become infructuous as the decree sought to be executed is a nullity. The main ground of attack is that the matter was referred to arbitration to the elders of meemohalla Committee, Warangal prior to the institution of the suit and the Award made became final and binding on the parties by virtue of. Section 35 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter in short referred to as "act" for the purpose of convenience) The stand taken by the petitioner is that in instead of enforcing the aforesaid Award in the manner laid down under Section 36 of the Act, the decree was obtained and the same is put into execution. Specific stand was taken that in the light of Section 5 of the Act, the decree cannot be enforced. The learned judge after recording reasons having observed that this question had not been raised or agitated in the suit, came to the conclusion that there are no merits in the application and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the said order the present civil revision petition is preferred.

( 4 ) SRI Rarnachandra Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that in the light of section 5 of the Act inasmuch as an arbitral award was made between the parties on reference by Meemohalla Committee, warangal the same is binding on the parties and the Civil Court could not have entertained this suit at all. The remedy is elsewhere to enforce the arbitral Award in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the Act and also Section 47 of the Code and placed strong reliance on a decision of the Apex court in Sarwan Kumar v. Madan Lal aggarwal, AIR 2003 SC 1475.

( 5 ) PER contra, Sri Puma Chander rao, the learned Counsel representing the respondent would maintain that this is an application which had been thought of only to procrastinate the litigation and absolutely there are no bona fides. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the said objection was not taken at any stage whatsoever. The matter in fact was carried by way of appeal and also second appeal and the same had attained finality and hence at this distant point of time it cannot be contended that the decree made by the Court is without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on Soora Ramachandra Reddy (died) and others v. G. Paradesi and others, 2005 (3) ALT 420 = 2005 (5) ALD (NOC) 179.

( 6 ) HEARD both the Counsel.

( 7 ) THE revision petitioner moved an application under Section 47 read with section 151 of the Code to dismiss. The e. P. as having become infructuous on the ground that the decree in O. S. No. 400/97 is a nullity in the light of the arbitral Award made by the elders of Meemohalla committee, Warangal prior to the institution of the suit. It is stated that the said award became final and binding by virtue of Section 35 of the Act and the same may have to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of Section 36 of the act. The main objection is that in a case where arbitral Award was made, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Act. Section 5 of the Act dealing with Extent of judicial"notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene