1. The first petitioner is a partnership firm. It was established in the year 1971 and was reconstituted on 08-01-1980. Petitioners 2 and 3 and respondents 1 to 3 are its partners. Disputes arose between the partners of the firm. They were referred to an Arbitrator in the year 1992. The Arbitrator passed an award dated 22-11-1992. O.S. No.19 of 1994 was filed by the Arbitrator in the Court of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, ‘Old Act’) with a prayer to make the award, the Rule of the Court. The said suit was dismissed.

2. The petitioners filed O.S. No.165 of 1996 in the Court of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the relief of dissolution of the firm. The trial Court appointed the 4th respondent, a retired District Judge, as an Arbitrator. Taking into account, the scope of controversy between the parties, respondent No.4 framed 5 issues and 2 additional issues for his consideration. Through his award dated 25-10-2001, respondent No.4 answered issue Nos.1, 2, 5 and additional issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners and issue Nos.3, 4 and additional issue No.2 in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The petitioners filed O.S. No.151 of 2002 under the relevant provisions of the Old Act, not only claiming the relief of making the award, in so far as it is in their favour, as Rule of Court, but also for setting aside the award, to the extent, it has gone against them and in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3. Claiming exactly the opposite relief, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed O.P. No.11 of 2001 in the same Court. Through a common judgment dated 30-03-2007, the trial Court decreed O.S No.151 of 2002 and allowed O.P. No.11 of 2001 confirming the award, except on certain minor aspects.

3. Respondents filed I.A. No.472 of 2008 under Order XXXIV Rule 2 read with 151 CPC and under Section 49 of the Partnership Act, with a prayer to pass final decree, for the amounts mentioned in the statement of accounts appended to the petition, as Annexures 1 and 2. Through its order dated 07-08-2009, the trial Court passed a final decree in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and against the petitioners for a sum of Rs.1,59,22,393/-. The same is challenged in this revision petition.

4. The petitioners contend that the 4th respondent was appointed by the trial Court after the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘New Act’) came into force and that there was absolutely no legal or factual basis for respondent Nos.1 to 4, to initiate the proceedings under the Old Act. They contend that the Old Act stood repealed by the subsequent enactment and the proceedings thereunder, are totally untenable. Another contention of the petitioners is that the concept of final decree is unknown to Arbitration proceedings and the trial Court committed error in passing the final decree.

5. Sri G. Anandam, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though an Arbitrator came to be appointed under the Old Act on earlier occasion and an award was passed on 22-11-1992 under the Old Act, O.S. No.165 of 1996 filed by the Arbitrator was dismissed and with that, nothing survived thereafter. He submits that appointment of the 4th respondent was under the New Act and the proceedings initiated under the Old Act either for setting aside part of the award or for making the other part, as Rule of Court cannot be maintained. Learned counsel further submits that the award was incomplete inasmuch as it left much to be done through a separate exercise and the concept of final decree is alien to the proceedings in relation to an award.

6. Sri T. K. Sridhar and Sri T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand, submit that the dispute between the parties arose much before the New Act came to be enacted, so much so, an award was passed on 22-11-1992 under the Old Act. According to them, filing of O.S. No.165 of