K.M. Thaker, J.

1. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:

5(b) Allow this Special Civil Application by issuing a writ or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the order passed below Exh. 1 in Execution Petition No. 3 of 2012 dated 24th September, 2012 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar and also be pleased to quash and set aside the arbitration award in Arbitration proceeding No. 995 of 2010 dated 5-5-2011.

(c) Pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the warrant issued in Execution Petition No. 3 of 2012 by order dated 24th September, 2012 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar and also be pleased to stay the execution and implementation of order below Exh. 1 in Execution Petition No. 3 of 2012 dated 24th September, 2012 passed by 5th Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar.

This petition arises in connection with the arbitration proceedings instituted by the respondent-Bank which culminated into an award passed by the arbitrator.

1.1. Since the award was not honoured, the respondent-Bank commenced execution proceedings by filing execution petition in the Court in whose local limits and jurisdiction the property against which the award is to be executed is situate i.e. at Bhavnagar.

1.2. During pendency of the execution proceedings, the defendants raised objection against the institution of the proceedings before the learned Court at Bhavnagar on the ground that the proceedings should have been instituted before the Court in whose local limits and jurisdiction the arbitrator passed the award and then the learned Court may transfer it at the place where property is situate.

1.3. The learned Court rejected the said objection and passed direction to issue attachment warrants.

1.4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said order. Hence, present petition.

2. So as to consider the controversy raised by the parties, it is necessary and appropriate to take into account certain relevant facts.

2.1. From the material on record and from the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the contesting parties, it has emerged that the petitioner herein is a borrower of funds from present respondent-Bank, who extended loan facility to the said borrower.

2.2. In respect of said transaction, a loan agreement dated 22-9-2008 was executed between the parties.

2.3. Subsequently, some dispute arose between the respondent-Bank and the petitioner borrower in connection with the loan agreement dated 22-9-2008.

2.4. Consequently, in light of the provision under the said loan agreement, i.e. the arbitration clause/agreement, the respondent-Bank instituted arbitration proceedings.

2.5. Learned Arbitral Tribunal (comprising sole arbitrator, appointed by the Bank under and as per the agreed terms in the loan agreement) constituted under the provision of the arbitration agreement conducted the arbitration proceedings, which culminated into the award dated 5-5-2011.

2.6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant and necessary to mention that the arbitration proceedings were held and conducted at Chennai (Tamil Nadu) and the award also came to be passed at Chennai.

2.7. Since the award was not complied and honoured by the borrower, the respondent-Bank instituted execution proceedings.

2.8. It is pertinent that the respondent-Bank instituted the execution proceedings in the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge (S.D.) at Bhavnagar.

2.9. During the pendency of the said execution proceedings (which came to be registered as Execution Petition (Darkhast) No. 3 of 2012), the judgment-debtor, i.e. present petitioner lodged objections on 11-5-2012 which came to be registered at Exh. 15 by the learned executing Court.

2.10. Before the judgment-debtor filed the said objections, the learned executing Court, upon hearing the petitioner, had already issued attachment warrant on 3-4-2012 in respect of movable properties of the j