ORDER :

U. Durga Prasad Rao, J.

1. Challenge in this civil revision petition, at the instance of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor No. 2, is to the order, dated 19.9.2018, in EP No. 6 of 2015 in ARC No. 241 of 2012, passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada (for short, 'the execution Court'), negating the objections raised by the petitioner/JDR in his counter and proceeding with the execution.

2. Heard Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1/Decree Holder.

3. The facts in narrow compass are that the 1st respondent/DHR filed Arbitration Case No. 241 of 2012 before the Sole Arbitrator for recovery of Rs. 2,86,75,164/-; 2nd respondent herein is the borrower, petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein are the co-obligants for the loan sanctioned to the 2nd respondent. The petitioner/JDR No. 2 created equitable mortgage over his properties by depositing his title deeds with the 1st respondent/DHR. The borrower and guarantors remained ex-parte before the Arbitrator. Upon taking the evidence on behalf of the 1st respondent/DHR, the Arbitrator passed an Award directing the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and petitioner herein to pay claim amount of Rs. 2,86,75,164/- along with future interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of reference of the claim till the date of Award and at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of Award till the date of realization.

4. In the Award, it was further directed that, in case of failure of the respondents to pay the claim amount within three months from the date of Award, the claimant was entitled to attach and sell the schedule mentioned mortgage property of the 2nd respondent. Since the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 failed to pay the amount awarded, 1st respondent/DHR filed EP No. 6 of 2015, before the execution Court, under Order XXI Rules 54, 64 and 66 of C.P.C., for attachment and sale of the E.P. schedule property and also for realization of the awarded amount. The petitioner/JDR, resisted the E.P. mainly on the contention that since the arbitration claim is based on a mortgage transaction, the Arbitrator was not competent to pass the award and it is only the Civil Court which is competent to pass preliminary and final decrees as per the provisions under Order XXXIV of C.P.C. The said contention is negatived by the execution Court observing that the award that was passed by the Arbitrator was a simple money decree for recovery of the amount and the Arbitrator directed that, if the award amount was not paid within three months, the claimant can attach the mortgage property and in pursuance of the said award the E.P. is filed by the 1st respondent/DHR and got attached the E.P. schedule property and, hence, he is entitled to execute the decree. Hence, the civil revision petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the same contention, as urged before the execution Court to the effect that since the claim of the decree holder is a mortgage claim, which cannot be referred to and resolved by a private Arbitrator and rather mortgage claim being a claim in rem, it has to be resolved by a public forum (Civil Court) and therefore, the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to pass the award. He placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Limited and others, AIR 2011 SC 2507. The 1st respondent/DHR opposed the revision contending that the award passed by the Arbitrator was only in respect of a simple money decree and, hence, the contention is not tenable.

6. I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective submissions.

7. The contention of the petitioner is not maintainable for the following two reasons:

7A. Firstly, a perusal of the Award shows that, as rightly argued by learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/DHR, though the claim is a mortgage claim, however, the Arbitrator passed an award for simple money clai