Five civil revision petitions involving identical question of law have been heard together on the prayer of the learned counsel of the parties and accordingly they are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, essential respective facts of each of the five revision petitions are stated separately at the threshold.

2. CRP No. 196/2015 (Alema Khatun and others vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.):-

The petitioners purchased a truck under hire purchase agreement with the opposite party. The agreement contained a schedule for payment of EMI and an arbitration clause for resolution of any dispute. The petitioners could not make payment as per the payment schedule of the agreement and thus a dispute arose between the financier and the debtor. Opposite party Tata Motors Ltd. appointed one Mr. Nitin Chavan as sole arbitrator who initiated an arbitration proceeding at Mumbai for realisation of the dues. The arbitration proceeding was held ex-parte against the present petitioners and an award for payment of Rs. 10,75,049.82 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. 17.06.2013 till realisation along with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- was passed by the sole arbitrator. Thereafter, the Tata Motors Ltd. filed Money Execution Case No. 12/2014 under Order XXI Rule 11 of the CPC in the court of learned District Judge, Dhubri.

3. On being summoned, the present petitioners as debtors submitted a written objection, inter alia, on the ground that the execution case has been instituted without complying with the mandatory provisions of Order XXI Rule 5 and 6 of the CPC. One of the other objections was that since the decree holder prayed for execution of the judgment debtor by getting him arrested and retained, compliance of the provisions of Rule 11 and 14 of Order XXI was necessary. Besides, it was also pleaded that the arbitration award itself was obtained by fraud without taking into consideration that the truck became traceless with the driver for which the judgment debtor had lodged an FIR with Sagolia OP immediately after disappearance of the truck with intimation to the decree holder, the Tata Motor Finance Ltd. The judgment debtor had furnished all relevant documents to the Tata Motors on 08.04.2013 and thus the decree holder was very much aware as to under what circumstances the judgment debtor could not make payment of the EMI. The decree holder was also assured by the judgment debtor at that time that the loan would be repaid in full once insurance claim against disappearance of the truck is settled. As per the arbitration clause, there was no appointment of arbitrator from the side of the judgment debtor and the judgment debtor had never signed the arbitration agreement. With these objections, the judgment debtor prayed for dismissal of the execution case.

4. The learned Executing court after hearing the parties passed impugned order dated 30.04.2015 holding that an award passed by an arbitrator is deemed to be a decree under section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) but it is not a decree passed by any ‘court’ in the light of the definition of ‘court’ under section 2(e) of the Act. The learned court also held that there being no provision in the Act for transmission of award as in the case of transfer of a decree of a court, there is no necessity for transmission of award to the executing court at Dhubri. Accordingly, the learned Executing Court rejected the written objection by impugned order dated 30.04.2015. It is this order which has been brought under challenge in the present revision petition.

5. CRP No. 263/2015 (Ramiro Infrastructure and Builder PV Chairman and Managing Director vs. Tata Motors Finance Ltd.):-

Petitioner, Ramiro Infrastructures and Builder PV availed loan of Rs. 13,00,000/- from opposite party Tata Motors Finance Ltd. for purchase of vehicle by executing a hire purchase agreement on 31.01.2013. But all documents relating to the transaction was r