JUDGMENT :

SOUMEN SEN, J:

1. This revisional application is at the instance of the award holder.

2. The award holder has challenged the order passed by the leaned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta on 30th April, 2019 in an application filed by the award debtors/judgment debtors under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure being Misc. Case no. 137 of 2018. The learned Judge allowed the Misc Case and the decree holder was directed to remove the defects in the award passed on 24th October, 2000 by the arbitrator in accordance with the Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and submit a report within two months from the date of the order.

3. The title execution case was kept pending.

4. The said order was not contemporaneously challenged by either parties. The award holder duly communicated the certified copy of this order to the learned Arbitrator by a letter dated 24th June, 2019 and requested the arbitrator to include a schedule of the property being one office space (500 sq.ft.) in Second floor of premises no. 2 Digambar Jain Temple Road, Calcutta 700 007 allotted in favour of Sri Jugal Kishore Mimani under the award dated 24th October, 2000 in the manner following:

“On the North : By office room (300 sq. ft. Approx) in occupation legal heirs of Kewal Chand Mimani;

On the South: By premises no. 1, Digambar Jain Temple Road, Calcutta 700 007;

On the East: Partly by small office room in occupation legal heirs of Kewal Chand Mimani;

On the West: By Digambar Jain Temple Road, Calcutta-700 007.”

5. The arbitrator was requested to incorporate by way of correction the aforesaid schedule in the award dated 24th October, 2000. The arbitrator duly forwarded the said letter to the award debtor Ajay Mimani by a letter dated 26th June, 2019 seeking response as to the correction indicated by the award holder in its letter dated 24th June, 2019 addressed to the arbitrator. In response Ajay Mimani by a letter dated 27th June, 2019 raised an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the learned Arbitrator to alter the consent award after the award was made and published. For convenience the said letter is reproduced below:

“From

Ajay Mimani

66, Parwati Ghosh Lane,

2nd Floor,

Kolkata 700007

To

Sri Krishna Kumar Phumra

Space Town Housing Complex

Block-8, Flat No. 3A

Raghunathpur, VIP Road

Kolkata – 700 052

Sir,

In response to the letter addressed to you by Kamal Kishore Mimani dated 24.06.2019 a copy whereof had been forwarded to me, I am to write to you as follows:-

It is a matter of record that you had acted as an Arbitrator for deciding certain private disputes and that an Award had been passed by you on consent of the parties. It is also a matter of record that at a subsequent stage you resigned from the post of Arbitrator which has been accepted by the parties.

The Award has the force of a Decree and when any Decree is passed or delivered on consent, no proceeding shall be for altering such consent decree and/or for setting aside the same unless the parties who consented to the grant of such Award do participate once again and agree to such alteration. Since you resigned, there is no scope for Mr. Kamal Kishore Mimani to approach you for amendment or altering the Award passed on consent without my consent and no Order of any Court has been passed thereby directing you to do such alteration of a consent decree as malafide stated in the last line of the letter under reply.

The learned Court virtually accepted my contention about the act of fraud committed by the said Kamal Kishore Mimani for obtaining Order from the learned executing Court and accordingly the proceeding started by me had been allowed by the Court by acknowledging the legal aspects canvassed by the learned Advocate representing me before the learned Chief Judge.

In the aforesaid background, you have no right to assume your office once again and make an attempt to alter the award passed on consent and that too in spite of my objection. The correction p