( 1 ) THE C. R. P. is filed against the Orders passed by the learned I Senior Civil Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad in O. P. No. 1 of 1997.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the 1st respondent in the O. P. It was filed by C. Venkat Ratnam and others, who are respondents in this revision and petitioners in O. P. seeking to make the award of the Arbitrators dated 1-4-1994 Rule of the Court.

( 3 ) CERTAIN events leading to the filing of the O. P. may be stated succinctly: the parties as arrayed in the O. P. are referred to herein for the purpose of convenient disposal. The petitioners entered into an agreement of sale with the respondents on 5-8-1993 wherein the petitioners agreed to sell and part with the company under the name and style of m/s. Ideal Industrial Explosives (P) limited, registered under the Companies act and the respondents agreed to purchase the same under a Memorandum of understanding. Certain disputes arose out of the said agreement and the matter was referred to private Arbitrators namely mr. A. Narsinga Rao and Mr. Ravi S. Advocates. The Arbitrators after hearing parties has passed the consent award on 1-1-1994. The said award was filed by the arbitrators in the Court on 23-4-1994 and the Court also issued notice to the parties on 17-5-1994. No objections were filed by the Opposite Party and neither party questioned the correctness of the award within 30 days. But, however, the Court did not pass the judgment and decree. Therefore, the petitioners filed a O. P. for making the Rule of Court. The learned judge after hearing the parties allowed the o. P. and made the award the Rule of Court by an Order dated: 30-4-1999. The said award is assailed. In this regard, it is also brought out before this Court that in pursuance of the decree having been passed by the Court in terms of the Award, the respondents herein filed E. P. before the Court for recovery of a sum of rs. 9,33,778/- and the said E. P. is pending before the Court for further enquiry. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Subramanya reddy, appearing for the revision petitioner raised the following substantial contentions:

( 4 ) THE lower Court committed a gross irregularity in receiving the award, which is required to be compulsorily registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The lower Court also gravely erred in receiving the unregistered award in evidence contrary to Section 49 of the said act.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent mr. Ramana Reddy submits that the award need not be registered as ingredients as contained in. Section 17 (l) (b) are not present in the Award.

( 6 ) SECONDLY, it is an award by consent and therefore petitioners cannot challenge the same even assuming that it is a unregistered award. He also submits that on the directions of the Court requisite stamp fee was affixed.

( 7 ) HE lastly contends that even if the arbitrators are precluded from receiving the award in evidence, yet, it cannot be discarded and that it is still binding as far as the matters relating to the items other than the immovable property having value of more than Rs. 100/-

( 8 ) ARGUMENTS were advanced in extenso by the learned Counsel on the issue.

( 9 ) THE issue that arises for consideration is whether an unregistered award can be received by the Court in evidence and the decree can be passed, (b) Whether the award can be severable in respect of movable and immovable properties if so what is the effect? Whether the C. R. P. is maintainable when an award is passed with the consent of parties?

( 10 ) THE undisputed facts in this case are that a Private Limited Company under the name and style of Industrial Explosives private Limited, a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and a running company was sold to another party under an agreement dated 5-8-1993. Various terms were enumerated in the agreement as to the method and manner of payment and take over process. Since some disput