Parties should address delays in court proceedings at the appropriate court level before seeking intervention from higher courts.

ORDER :

The present civil miscellaneous petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the learned Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Ranchi to expeditiously dispose of Execution Case No. 21/2019 filed for execution of the Arbitral Award dated 06.10.2018 passed by the Sole Arbitrator in A. A. No. 11 of 2011, whereby a sum of Rs. 35,18,90,249/- has been awarded in favour of the petitioner along with interest @ 6% per annum with effect from 07.12.2012 till 06.10.2018 and @ 18% per annum thereafter till final payment as in view of the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1996”), the said award is enforceable.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sole Arbitrator has passed the award dated 06.10.2018 holding that the petitioner is entitled for total claim of Rs. 35,18,90,249/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the order passed by the High Court referring the disputes to arbitration (specified as 07.12.2012), till the date of Award and @ 18% per annum from the date of Award till final payment. After passing of the Award, the opposite party filed Commercial Revocation Case No. 02/2018 before A.J.C-XIII-cum-Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Ranchi by preferring an application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 challenging the said award. The petitioner appeared in the said case and filed his objection justifying the award passed by the learned Arbitrator. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 36 of the Act, 1996 read with Order XXI Rule 11 CPC on 26.02.2019 before the same court where Commercial Revocation Case No. 02/2018 was pending for enforcement of the said arbitral award, which was registered as Commercial Execution Case No. 21/2019. The said execution case was registered on 26.02.2019 and put up for admission on 27.02.2019 which was finally admitted on 20.06.2019. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said execution case remained pending for more than two years for appearance of the judgment-debtor in spite of the fact that the notice issued to the opposite party was validly served. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, on instruction, submits that the opposite party has appeared in the said execution case in the last month. Though both the aforesaid cases are pending before the same court and the counsel for the opposite party has been regularly appearing in Commercial Revocation Case No. 02/2018 filed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, yet the opposite party is not co-operating in the execution case due to which the petitioner is still deprived of actual benefit of the award rendered by learned Sole Arbitrator.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rahul S. Shah Vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors.” reported in (2021) 6 SCC 418, particularly paragraph 42.12 of the same and submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in exercise of power conferred under Article 142 r/w Article 141 of the Constitution of India, has directed all the executing courts to dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the content of the writ petition. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the opposite party is being represented in Commercial Revocation Case No. 02/2018 filed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, it is not co-operating in timely disposal of the execution case i.e., Commercial Execution Case No. 21/2019.

5. On perusal of the present petition preferred before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it does not appear that the petitioner has ever requested learned Commercial Court to expedite the proceeding of Commercial Execution Case No. 21/2019. Since both the aforesaid cases are pending before the Commer