JUDGMENT :

BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.

1. This revision application has been filed assailing the Order No. 28 dated 30.11.2022 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in connection with Arbitration Execution Case No. 261 of 2019.

2. In this revision application the issue, high on the list, is that whether Execution Case being no. 261 of 2019 was filed after 18 years of the award i.e. beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

Background Facts:

3. On 23.12.2000 opposite party/decree holder obtained arbitral award on 23.12.2000 and one Title Execution No. 13 of 2002 was filed before the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 4th Court, Alipore. During pendency of that execution case opposite party/decree holder filed an application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code on 04.10.2018 with a prayer for withdrawal of the execution case for filing before the proper forum in terms of Provision of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Though opposite party/decree holder incorporated the prayer for filing the same before the proper forum in paragraph 15 of the application dated 04.10.2018 but at the time of passing order on 29.06.2019 Learned Judge only allowed the prayer for withdrawal ignoring the prayer for filing the execution case before the forum having jurisdiction. However, on 01.07.2019 opposite party/decree holder filed the Arbitration Execution Case being no. 261 of 2019 before the Learned District Judge who then transfer the same to the Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore for disposal.

4. Learned advocate, Mr. Arijit Bardhan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ judgment debtor has submitted that subsequent Execution Case being no. 261 of 2019 was filed after 18 years of the award following the order of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, 4th Court, Alipore that too without giving any liberty to file afresh.

5. In support of his contention Mr. Bradhan relied on a case of Premchand and Another vs. Sharan Singh, 2017 SCC Online P&H 4139. Mr. Bardhan has further relied on a case of Sugarbai M. Siddiq and Others vs. Ramesh S. Hankare (Dead) by LRs. (2001) 8 SCC 477.

6. In opposition to that, learned advocate, Mr. Chayan Gupta, appearing on behalf of the opposite party/decree holder has contended that petition dated 04.10.2018 clearly speaks the prayer for liberty to file execution case before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he relied on a case of Chandrakant Pandurang Shingade and Another vs. Walchand Gulabchand Bora and Another, 2019 SCC Online Bom 1669. Mr. Gupta has further relied on a case of Sukumar Banerjee vs. Dilip Kumar Sarkar and Others, 1981 SCC Online Cal 89. Mr. Gupta has further relied on a case of Thadi Konda Veeraswami vs. Thullum Peda Lakshmudu and Others, 1950 SCC Online Mad 331.

7. In Premchand (supra) Hon’ble Court dealt with a different facts and proposition of law as follows:

“(2) Brief fact are that respondent filed a civil suit for mandatory injunction against the petitioners vide Civil Suit No. 303 of 1995 titled Swaran Singh vs. Prem Chand and another'. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 06.09.2001 by the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Khanna. The 1 of 7 defendants were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property as detailed in the headnote of the plaint within a period of two months, failing which the plaintiff was held entitled to recover the possession in accordance with law. The suit was decreed for recovery of Rs.800/- per month instead of Rs.3,000/- per month towards use and occupation of the suit land for the period from 15.11.1992 to 31.03.1995. The said judgment and decree was affirmed in appeal by the Addl. District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 16.04.2003. Regular Second Appeal No. 3547 of 2003 filed by the petitioners against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below was also dismissed