( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is filed by the union of India represented by the General manager, South Central Railway and two others against the order dated 29-9-2001 made in E. P. No. 41/2001 in O. P. No. 20/1997 and O. S. No. 370/1996 on the file of the learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, city Civil Court, Secunderabad.

( 2 ) THE respondent is the contractor. Both the petitioner and the respondents have entered into an agreement for execution of certain works. As certain disputes arose between the respondent - contractor and the railways, the contractor/respondent invoked the arbitration clause and the competent authority appointed the joint arbitrators and the arbitrators passed an award on 05-10-1996. The petitioners -railway authorities herein filed O. P. No. 20/1997 challenging the award on various grounds to set aside the award and the contractor filed O. S. No. 370/1996 to make the award as the rule of court. The court below, by a common judgment and decree in O. S. No. 370/1996, decreed the suit in part making the award rule of the court in respect of Claim Nos. 2 to 6 and counter claim Nos. 1 and 2 of the railways. The suit was dismissed in respect of claim Nos. 1 and

( 3 ) IN so far as the O. P. is concerned, it was allowed in part setting aside the award in respect of Claim No. 1 and dismissed in respect of Claim No. 7. Aggrieved by the common judgment and decree passed by the iii Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad, the contractor alone filed C. M. A. No. 464/1999 and C. R. P. No. 599/1999 and the High Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the court below so far as Claim Nos. 2 to 6 of the contractor and the counter claim Nos. 1 and 2 made by the railway and set aside the judgment and decree of the court below in part and upheld the award passed by the arbitrators in respect of Claim No. l and rejected claim no. 7 made by the contractor. Thus, as per order of the High Court in C. M. A. No. 464/1999 and C. R. P. No. 599/1999 dated 08-05-2001 the contractor i. e. , decreeholder is entitled to claim Nos. 1 to 6 and the railways is entitled to counter claim made by them and the contractor is not entitled for claim no. 7 alone.

( 4 ) IT is clear from the above, the railways have not at all challenged the order dated 18-01-1999 made in O. S. No. 370/1996 and o. P. No. 20/1997 on the file of the iii Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad and the said judgment as confirmed and modified by the High court has become final. Whatever it may be, it appears that the contractor preferred a special Leave Petition for further relief and the railways have no grievance to say on the judgment of the High Court. It appears that the railways also paid an amount of rs. 3,51,775/- by cheque dated 31-3-1999 and the same was received by the respondent on 6-4-1999. The respondent also received another amount of Rs. 3,130. 00.

( 5 ) THE respondent herein filed e. P. No. 41/2001 in O. P. No. 20/1997. Realising the fact that the E. P. is not maintainable in the O. P. as executable judgment and decree is only in O. S. filed by the contractor in making the award as rule of the court, the respondent filed an application E. A. No. 135/2000 under Order 6 rule 17 read with Section 151 C. P. C. to amend the E. P. by adding O. S. No. 370/1996 in the cause title portion in the interest of justice. The said application is allowed by order dated 27-9-2001 in E. A. No. 135/2000 adding O. S. No. 370/1996 in the cause title. Thus, the E. P. has been amended amending its cause title as E. P. No. 41/1991 has been filed in O. S. No370/1996 as well as o. P. No. 20/1997. The grievance of the petitioners in this case is not with regard to the merits or payment of the decretal amount or in directing the attachment of the immovable property of the railways in realisation of the E. P. amount but only the objection of the railways is that E. P. is not maintainable in O. P. but it is mai