RFA.No.1151/2015 is filed by the decree-holder, whereas RFA.No.1068/2015 is preferred by the obstructer and RFA.Crob.9/2018 in RFA.No.1151/2015 is filed by the judgment debtor. Since all these three matters are filed against the very order passed by the Executing Court and since the question of facts in all these matters is same, they are taken up together to dispose of them by this common judgment in order to avoid repetition of facts and law.

2. The decree-holder filed RFA.No.1151/2015, praying this Court to call for the records in Execution No.1001/2014 from the concerned lower Court and to set aside the order dated 19.6.2015 passed by the 19th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH.No.18) in Execution No.1001/2014 only in so far as raising of attachment order to the extent of 50% of the attached property is concerned and another relief to dismiss the application filed under Order XXI Rule 58 r/w. Sections 60 and 151 of CPC. In RFA.No.1068/2015, the prayer of obstructer is to modify the order dated 19.6.2015 passed by the 19th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH.No.18) in Execution No.1001/2014 and to allow the application filed by the obstructer under Order XXI Rule 58 r/w. Sections 60 and 151 of CPC and to set aside the order of release 50% of decreetal amount in favour of the decree holder. In RFA.Crob.9/2018, the judgment debtor has prayed to set aside the order passed by the Executing Court ordering to pay 50% of attached amount in favour of the respondent and direct the respondent to reimburse the entire amount along with accrued bank rate of interest and deposit the same before the Executing Court till the disposal of the Execution Petition.

3. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the decree-holder-appellant in RFA.No.1151/2015 made the submission that the proceedings were initiated before the Arbitrator and after considering the entire case on merits, the Arbitrator has passed the award, awarding for an amount of Rs.65,18,088/. Thereafter the arbitration award was challenged by the judgment debtor before the Court by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in Arbitration Suit No.43/2014 on the file of the City Civil Court at Bangalore. After hearing and considering the merits of the said arbitration suit, ultimately the Court dismissed the arbitration suit by its judgment dated 21.7.2014. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed in the arbitration suit, the judgment debtor challenged the same before this Court by filing an appeal in MFA.No.6821/2014. The matter was heard by the Division Bench of this Court and ultimately the said appeal came to be dismissed by the judgment dated 4.8.2015. Thereafter the decree-holder filed the case before the Executing Court in Execution No.1001/2014 wherein he has also sought for attachment of the property and accordingly an order of attachment was passed by the Executing Court by its order dated 10.4.2014 attaching an amount of Rs.5,57,97,839/. The decree-holder requested the Executing Court for release of the entire amount. Learned counsel further submitted that the obstructer Employees’ Association of M/s. Karnataka State Construction Corporation Limited filed objections and also application under Order XXI Rule 58 r/w. Sections 60 and 151 of CPC. He further submitted that after hearing the matter, the Executing Court passed the order dated 19.6.2015 wherein the decree-holder has been allowed to draw 50% of the decretal amount and the remaining 50% is concerned, the Executing Court passed an order raising the order of attachment. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the decree-holder preferred the appeal challenging the order of the Executing Court in raising an order of attachment of 50% and submitted that the appeal be confined only to that extent. In so far as RFA.Crob.9/2018 is concerned, the learne