The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction for the execution of an award is determined based on the location of the arbitration proceedings, award, and related proceedings, and the correctional jurisdiction under Section 104 of the J&K Constitution should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.

Tashi Rabstan, J.

1. In both the petitions, filed under Section 104 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the application filed by the petitioners in OWP No. 35 of 2012, seeking transfer of the Execution Application to the Court of learned District Judge, Samba has been challenged. The Execution Application, transfer of which was sought, was filed by Respondent No.1-Baldev Sharma seeking execution of award passed by the learned Arbitrator on 14.09.2001. Execution application came to be filed before the learned District Judge Jammu on 11.09.2004 and at the relevant point of time, the area Dari Brahamana was part of District Jammu.

2. The facts-in-brief are that the parties to the present litigation, namely, Ora Parkash and Tilak Raj, petitioners in OWP No. 33/2012, Baldev Sharma-respondent who has filed the execution application, Prabhdev Singh petitioner in OWP No. 35/2012 and Late Balwant Singh predecessor-in-interest of Deepak Singh and Parkasho Devi were carrying on partnership business under three different partnerships. The three different partnership firms, i.e., Bari Brahmana Rice Mill, Bari Brahmana Salt and Sharman Rice Mill had been executed by the parties, detail of which is as under:

Name of the firm	Name of Partners	Petition No.	Date of execution of partnership deed	Place of execution & registration of partnership deed
Bari Brahmana Rice Mill	Sh. Om Parkash Sh. Tilak Raj Late Sh. Balwant Singh (predecessor-in-interest of Prabdev Singh, Deepak Singh and Parkasho Devi) Sh. Baldev Sharma	Petitioners in Petition No: 33/2012 Petitioners in Petition No: 35/2012 Respondent No. 1	27.06.1983	Sub Registrar Mufassil, Jammu
Bari Brahmana Salt	Sh. Om Parkash Sh. Tilak Raj Late Sh. Balwant Singh predecessor-in-interest of Prabdev Singh, Deepak Singh and Parkasho Devi) Sh. Baldev Sharma	Petitioners in Petition No: 33/2012 Petitioners in Petition No: 35/2012 Respondent No. 1	27.06.1983	Sub Registrar Mufassil, Jammu
Sharman Rice Mills	Sh. Om Parkash Sh. Tilak Raj Prabdev Singh Sh. Baldev Sharma	Petitioners No.1 & 2 in Petition No: 33/2012 Petitioner No. 1 in Petition No: 35/2012 Respondent No.1	15.05.1986	Sub Registrar Samba

3. It is admitted that disputes arose between the parties and they executed an agreement at Jammu on 28.12.2000 for referring the disputes to the Arbitrator. The award was passed by the Arbitrator in September 2001 at Jammu. It is the aforesaid award, for which, the execution application was filed before the learned District Judge, Jammu.

4. It is contended that in terms of Section 35 and 36 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997, an award becomes final and binding between the parties or persons claiming under them where the application for setting aside the award has not been filed within the time prescribed by Section 34 of the Act or where such application having been filed, has been dismissed. The award can, as such, be enforced in the same manner as if it were a decree of a Court. It is admitted by the parties that award passed by the Arbitrator was not questioned by any one of them, rather petitioners in OWP No. 33/2012 had themselves filed an application for the execution of the award before the learned District Judge, Jammu in February 2004, but the said application came to be dismissed on 15.10.2004 for non prosecution. When the execution application was filed by respondent-Baldev Sharma, Sh. Prabhdev Singh petitioner in OWP No. 35/2012 as also Late Sh. Balwant Singh predecessor-in-interest of petitioners in OWP No. 35/2012 had filed the reply stating therein that they had no objection to the execution of the Award. Petitioners in OWP No. 33/2012 had earlier also raised various objections to the executio