The main legal point established in the judgment is that a money suit based on a mortgage could not be adjudicated upon by the Arbitration Tribunal, and the release of documents for creating equitable mortgage did not result in the discharge of the decree amount.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated 22.10.2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, Madurai in E.A.No.29 of 2007 in E.P.No.45 of 2006 to the extent of terminating E.P.No.45 of 2006 as having accorded full satisfaction of the decreetal amount and consequently direct the lower Court to reopen E.P.No.45 of 2006 for further adjudication.)

1. The decree holder in an Arbitration Award is the revision petitioner herein challenging the order of allowing an application under Section 47 of C.P.C and thereby terminating the execution proceedings. Factual Background:

2. According to the revision petitioner, the petitioner company as claimant had initiated arbitration proceedings as against the respondent herein on the basis of a stockist agreement dated 29.10.1995 and supplementary agreement dated 29.06.2004. As per the said claim petition, the revision petitioner was engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of various brands of cement and the respondent herein was a stockist. In the business transaction, the stockist did not pay the entire amount due to the claimant and in order to secure the said amount, the respondent had mortgaged 2.22 acres agricultural lands in Avaniyapuram Village, Madurai District by depositing the title deeds relating to the said lands with the claimant.

3. Arbitration proceedings were initiated claiming a sum of Rs.16,31,959.03. The said arbitration proceedings culminated in favour of the claimant and an award was passed by the sole arbitrator on 25.10.2005. In order to execute the said award, the claimant had filed E.P.No.45 of 2006 on the file of the District Court, Madurai to bring the property for Court auction sale without attachment and to appropriate the sale proceeds towards the decree amount. The said E.P was filed claiming a sum of Rs.19,93,730.92.

4. The respondent in the execution proceedings had filed a counter disputing the calculation on the ground that the amount that were already paid by him were not deducted. The respondent had further contended that the benefits of discounts have not been deducted by the claimant. While the execution proceedings were pending, the judgment debtor had addressed a letter to the decree holder enclosing a copy of minutes of discussion dated 28.08.2000 requesting the decree holder to withdraw all the cases on the ground that the entire amount arising out of the award has already been satisfied. Since the decree holder proceeded with the execution petition, the judgement debtor had filed E.A.No.29 of 2007 under Section 47 of C.P.C on 04.10.2007 to terminate the execution proceedings on the ground that the decree has been satisfied in full and the decree holder was liable to repay a sum of Rs.8,92,500/-. In the said petition, the judgment debtor had contended that the decree holder had already handed over the original documents of the agricultural lands which was mortgaged to the decree holder as a security for the outstanding dues.

5. The decree holder had filed a counter contending that the decree amount has not been satisfied in full and return of the documents are not connected with the claim petition. The decree holder has also disputed the claim of the judgment debtor to repay a sum of Rs.8,92,500/-.

6. The Executing Court relied upon the communication dated 17.01.2007 and found that on receipt of payment of Rs.16,25,000/- by the judgement debtor, the decree holder has already returned the document held as security to the judgement debtor. Once the documents have been returned, it would amount to redemption of mortgage. Therefore, the said communication of the judgement debtor and the subsequent conduct of the decree holder would only reveal that the mortgage money has been realized and thereafter the original document relating to the mortgaged property was released by the decree holder only after full and final settlement.

7. The Executing Court further found that the jud