ORDER :

R.B. Deo, J.

1. Heard Shri. Shyam Dewani, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri. R.L. Khapre, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 6 and Shri. Sudhanshu Joshi, the learned counsel for respondents 17 to 19.

2. Petitioner Shri. Jitendra Diwanchand Bhutani, who is admittedly a judgment-debtor, preferred an application Exhibit-93 in Regular Darkhast 487/2006, the prayer clause of which reads thus:

Prayer:- It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly please to:

a) Order for executing the decree passed in the matter firstly against the properties mention in para 5 of the application, which are admittedly belonging to the original partners and in respect of one of the property, an order of injunction was passed in the matter, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice:

b) grant any other relief as may be deemed, fit and proper in the circumstances and interest on justice may require.

3. Vide the order impugned dated 16.08.2017 the Executing Court rejected the application Exhibit-93.

4. Being aggrieved, the judgment-debtor is invoking this court writ jurisdiction.

5. The litigation as a checkered and tortuous history. Not surprisingly, the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor Shri. Shyam Dewani invoked several provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to persuade me to hold that the order impugned is unsustainable. However, in my considered view, the submissions advanced are not only devoid of substance, the submissions bring in sharp focus the desperation of the judgment-debtor to somehow or the other prevent and deprive the decree holders from enjoying the fruits of the decree.

6. Before the submissions are considered, the bare essential facts may be noted.

7. Disputes qua the rendition of accounts and the distribution of the profits of a partnership firm led to filing of petition under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 ('Arbitration Act') which was initially registered as MJC 441/1969 and subsequently re-registered as Regular Civil Suit 54/1974. The suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.02.1980 as barred by limitation. The judgment and decree of dismissal was challenged in First Appeal 108/1980 which was decided by this Court vide judgment dated 21.09.1989. The appeal was partly allowed and the Civil Judge was directed to appoint an Arbitrator and refer the dispute to the appointed Arbitrator in view of the arbitration agreement in the partnership deed.

8. The dispute was referred to the learned Arbitrator Shri. Onkar Chagani who delivered an award dated 22.03.1993, the operative part of which reads thus:

Now therefore, on consideration of the claims made by the claimants, I do hereby make this Award that the Respondent jointly and severally to pay to the claimants a sum of Rs. 50,22,486/- (Fifth Lakhs Twenty Two Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Six only) plus simple interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the principle amount of Awarded sum of Rs. 15,88,416.00 from the date of Award till the date of decree or actual payment whichever is earlier and the cost of Arbitration proceedings of Rs. 3000/- as awarded.

9. It is not in dispute that the award dated 22.03.1993 was made Rule of the court, which judgment and order was confirmed by this Court in First Appeal 444/2006 and the special leave petition challenging the judgment of this Court was dismissed.

10. The substratum of application Exhibit-93, which is rejected by the order impugned, may now be noticed.

11. The judgment-debtor referred to the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 50 of the CPC and provisions of Sections 45(1), 48 and 49 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 to contend that the decree be first executed against the properties mentioned in paragraph 5 of the application, which are (i) land and building situated at plot 9, Old Nehru Nagar, Bhilai and land and building situated at Bhilai G.E. Road, Powerhouse, Bhilai. The contention is premised on the judgment-debto