JUDGMENT :

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure P-11) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar in execution application whereby the application for recall of the order dated 03.03.2025 has been dismissed and also for setting aside the order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-7) whereby the right to file reply/objection of the petitioners has been directed to be struck off and consequently, the petitioners be allowed to file and place on record reply/objections.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are the judgment debtors and an award has been passed against them. He further submitted that the objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) filed by the petitioners were dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar. Against the aforesaid judgment, an appeal under Section 37 of the Act has been filed which is pending before this Court. However, no interim order has been passed by this Court in the said appeal.

3. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent had filed an execution application against the petitioners for enforcement of the award. However, vide the impugned order dated 03.03.2025 (Annexure P-7), learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar struck off the right to file reply/objections of the petitioners/judgment debtors. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for recalling of the aforesaid order, which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure P-11). He also submitted that the right to file reply/objections of the petitioner/judgment debtors was struck off on the ground that the same had not been filed for a long period of time. He submitted that the reason for the delay was that the file was with the Head Office of the petitioners, which took considerable time to prepare and sanction the reply/objections. He further submitted that since now the reply is ready, the same may be considered and permitted to be filed before learned Executing Court after setting aside the impugned orders (Annexures P-7 & P-11).

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also perused both the impugned orders dated 03.03.2025 and 30.10.2025 (Annexures P-7 & P-11).

5. The petitioners are the judgment debtors and rather petitioner No.1 is a State Government Undertaking. An arbitral award was passed against the petitioners, against which objections under Section 34 of the Act were filed by them. These objections were dismissed and thereafter, an appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid order, which is pending before this Court, although no interim order has been passed therein. When execution application was filed by the respondent/decree holder, then the petitioners appeared before learned Executing Court on 07.02.2024 but failed to file any reply or objections and it was after about one year i.e. on 03.03.2025, when the impugned order (Annexure P-7) was passed, that the right to file reply/objections of the petitioners was struck off because of the reason that the matter was being adjourned from time to time but the petitioners were not filing reply/objections. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for recalling of the said order which was dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure P-11). The petitioners have also annexed the zimni orders passed by learned Executing Court from the date of their appearance i.e. 07.02.2024 (Annexure P-6). A perusal of the aforesaid zimni orders would show that the matter was adjourned approximately ten times by learned Additional District Judge, mostly at the petitioners' request for filing reply/objections and in this way, it is clear that it was because of the fault of the petitioners that the execution remained pending for about one year because of non-filing of the reply/objections and i