Hon’ble Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J.—Instant civil revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is against the order dated 3.7.2012 whereby District Judge, Lucknow has returned the execution application holding it to be not maintainable, for presentation before the proper Court.

2. I have heard Sri Siddharth Dhaon, learned counsel for revisionist and Mohd. Saeed for opposite-parties.

3. Briefly stated facts are that revisionist GE Money Financial Services Ltd. (decree-holder) entered into an agreement with Mohd. Azaz and Mohd. Ayaz, judgment-debtors and a loan of Rs. 4,85,000/- was paid by the judgment-debtor. When loan was not paid, an Arbitrator was appointed in terms of clause 11.1 of the agreement. On 17.6.2010, an award for a sum of Rs. 10,32,200.62/- was made alongwith interest. Decree-holder filed execution application seeking execution of the award dated 17.6.2010 before the District Judge, Lucknow who held that it is not maintainable and returned for presentation before the proper Court. This very order has been challenged before this Court.

4. It is submitted by Sri Siddharth Dhaon, learned counsel for revisionist, that under the provisions of Arbitrations & Conciliation Act, 1996, it is open to the decree-holder to file award for execution anywhere at any place where property of judgment-debtor is situated or he resides. It is further submitted that District Judge has committed error in not following the law as interpreted by various High Courts.

5. Sri Mohd. Saeed, learned counsel for opposite-parties, submits that award has to be executed as a decree and it can be executed by the Court which passed the decree or by the Court where decree is transferred for the execution, as neither Arbitrator at Lucknow has given the award so as to make the District Judge, Lucknow competent to execute the decree nor the Lucknow Court has received decree by transfer for execution District Judge was justified in not entertaining the execution application.

6. Before adverting to the controversy involved in the petition, it is necessary to briefly mention the scheme of 1996 Act which is a clear departure from the scheme of Arbitration Act, 1940. In old Act, award was required to be made rule of the Court whereafter it was filed for execution. Under the new Act, award is not required to be made rule of Court. Under Section 31 of the Act, 1996, arbitral award shall be made by the members of the Arbitral Tribunal. Copy of signed award will be given to the parties and under Section 32 arbitral proceedings will be deemed to have ended once final award is given or Arbitrator passes specific order terminating the arbitration proceedings. Errors may be corrected within 30 days. Section 34 of the Act provides forum to challenge the award in Court of law which challenge can be made after three months from the date the party has received the copy of award or any order, if any, passed under Section 33 of the Act making corrections in the award. This period of three months is extendable by a further period of 30 days. Under Section 36 of the Act, after the expiry of the time provided under Section 34 and if any order has been passed under Section 34, award became capable of enforcement as a decree of Civil Court. Section 36 of the Act is being reproduced below :

“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.”

7. Section 37 of the CPC defines the Court which passed the decree and will be deemed to include,—

“(a) where the decree to be executed has been passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the Court of first instance, and

(b) where the Court of first instance has ceased to exist or to have jurisdiction to execute it, the Court which, if the suit wherein the decree was p