VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. 1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2010 passed in Execution Petition No.186/2009 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the said execution petition has been dismissed on the ground that the same is not maintainable.

2. 2. The execution petition had been preferred to seek to execute the decree passed by the Court while making the award dated 15.11.1989, passed by the learned sole arbitrator, “rule”of the court with slight modification vis-à-vis, the direction contained in para-9 of the award. The said direction required the parties to go back to the arbitrator for implementation and interpretation of the award in case any dispute arose between them in that regard. The arbitrator also sought to retain jurisdiction to issue subsequent clarification. This aspect was also set aside by the Court while, otherwise, affirming the

award and passing a decree in terms thereof vide judgment dated 30.05.1997, passed in Suit No.327A/1990 titled S.C. Mathur v. V.P. Punj & Ors. We may note that the aforesaid judgment dated 30.05.1997 was assailed in FAO (OS) Nos.174/1997 and 88/1998 without success, which were dismissed by this Court on 03.03.2009.

1. 3. To appreciate this controversy, it is necessary to give a little background of the matter. Late Sh. Kanhaya Lal Punj, it appears, was a very successful businessman and established various businesses. He and his family members also acquired a large number of properties. After his death, disputes with regard to division of properties and businesses arose between his descendants. These disputes were referred to arbitration.

2. 4. There were three groups of persons before the arbitrator comprising of 27 persons. Whereas 26 of them fell in two groups, namely Group-I and Group-II comprising of 14 and 12 members respectively; Group-III consisted of the widow of late Sh. Kanhaya Lal Punj. The award made by the learned arbitrator was a result of a negotiated family settlement agreeable to all the parties. The award sets out the details of the various properties and businesses which were being carried out by the family, either in the name of incorporated companies or in the names of partnership concerns or proprietary firms, which were made the subject matter of division. The award also recognized that :

“The Companies are being run and owned by the aforesaid Punj brothers alongwith their wives and children in their individual capacity and through HUF wherever applicable and alongwith a small number of shares held by certain outsiders who are close family friends.

Whereas the said companies are in reality in the nature of partnership, though wearing veils of Private Limited Companies.” (emphasis supplied)

.5. The learned arbitrator distributed the properties, businesses and the business entities, i.e. the companies amongst the three groups, as enumerated in the exhibits annexed to the award. The procedure to effect the partition, transfer and vesting of assets in the three groups was also delineated in para-6 of the said award. This procedure, inter alia, provided that the partnership could be changed/modified to give effect to the award; the employees attached to the divisions and companies taken over

.by each group and any related office staff shall automatically become employees of the respective companies/firms; the scheme of arrangement was required to be framed to settle the distribution of the various divisions of businesses being carried out by private limited companies, and; other similar steps were required to be taken by the parties.

2. 6. The purpose of narrating the aforesaid is to highlight the undisputed position that all the parties to the said award dated 05/06.08.1987 recognised and acknowledged the fact that the assets of the family, though held in the names of family held companies, partnerships, proprietary firms, and in the name of HUFs and individuals, belonged to the family and for their division, and for the division of the running