Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 4.5.2016 passed by the Executing Court, whereby the prayer made by the petitioners for staying the execution proceedings has been rejected.

2. An award dated 19.6.2015 for a sum of Rs. 14,26,625/- was passed by the arbitrator after the dispute was referred to him under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') under the orders of this Court.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners approached the jurisdictional court under Section 34 of the Act and the said proceedings are pending.

4. The respondent initiated proceedings for execution of the award dated 19.6.2015 under Section 36 of the Act. The petitioners prayed before the executing court that in terms of Section 36 of the Act, as the proceedings under Section 34 are pending consideration before the jurisdictional court, the proceedings in execution be stayed. To which, it appears that submission was made by the respondent that as the application filed by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Act was filed beyond thirty days, the petitioners are not entitled to seek stay of the proceedings.

5. A further submission was made that in view of the amended Section 36 of the Act, as the proceedings in execution has not been stayed, the petitioners cannot seek automatic stay of the proceedings.

6. The executing court by its order impugned came to the conclusion that besides the fact that application was filed by the petitioners beyond limitation under Section 34 of the Act, as there was no order under Section 36(2) of the Act, proceedings cannot be stayed and rejected the prayer and order for further proceedings.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the submission made by the respondent regarding the application under Section 34 of the Act being barred by limitation is ex-facie incorrect as the limitation has been taken as thirty days, whereas Section 34 of the Act provides for three months limitation for filing objection.

8. It is further submitted that as the award was passed on 19.6.2015 before the amendment in provisions of Section 36 of the Act, which amendment came into effect on 23.10.2015, the unamended provision of Section 36 would apply and the pendency of proceedings under Section 34 of the Act is sufficient for the executing court to stay its hands off the execution proceedings and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record.

10. So far as the issue of limitation qua the application under Section 34 of the Act is concerned, the indication in the order that the limitation for filing objections under Section 34 of the Act is thirty days appears to be on its face contrary to the limitation prescribed under Section 34 of the Act and as admittedly the objections were filed on 7.8.2015 against the award dated 19.6.2015 it cannot be said that the same were barred.

11. So far as the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners that as the award was passed before the provisions of Section 36 of the Act were amended w.e.f. 23.10.2015 and therefore, the amended provision would not apply is concerned, does not appear to be correct. The provisions of Section 36 of the Act prior to amendment read as under:-

"36. Enforcement:- Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, it has been refused, the award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court.

However, post amendment, the same reads as under:-

"36. Enforcement:- (1) Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 has expired, then, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), such award shall be enforced i