V.B.Gupta, J.

1. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioners against impugned order dated 10th September, 2010 passed by Civil Judge, Delhi, vide which objections under Section 47 read with Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short as „Code?) filed by the petitioners were dismissed.

2. Brief fact which emerges from record are that, petitioners as well as respondent are real brothers and were partner in M/s Jain Jewellers at Shop No. 1168/8, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. Since certain disputes arose between them, respondent filed a petition before this Court for appointment of an Arbitrator. Sh. A. K. Sikri. J, appointed Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate, as Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator, passed an award on 4th May, 2009 which was later on modified on 21st May, 2009.

3. Petitioners filed objections against the award, which were dismissed by S. N. Dhingra. J, vide order dated 7th September, 2009. Thereafter, petitioners preferred an appeal before Division Bench of this Court, which was also dismissed. Subsequently, Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the Apex Court.

4. Respondent also filed objections against the award specifically taking objections regarding claim of possession of property in question. These objections were dismissed by Sh. Rajiv Sahai Endlaw. J, vide order dated 24th August, 2009. Respondent filed an appeal against that order and his objections were remanded back for adjudication and appeal is still pending and is fixed for 22nd November, 2010.

5. Now respondent has filed execution petition before the Senior Civil Judge in which petitioners filed objections under Section 47 of the Code.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that executing court has no pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition, since Arbitrator was appointed by this Court and the decree holder earlier filed a suit for possession of the

same property before the District Judge. The executing court has acted in haste without waiting for the outcome of appeal/objections pending before this Court. Hence, impugned order is liable to be set aside.

7. Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under this Article is limited.

8. Article 227 of The Constitution of India reads as under; “227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court- (1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may- (a) call for returns from such courts; (b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.

(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practicing therein;

Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision of any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor. (4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed forces.”

9. In Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another, AIR 1954, SC 215, the court observed; “This power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C. J., in –„Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. V. Sukumar Mukherjee?, AIR 1951 Cal 193 (SB) (B), to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordina