Objections under Section 47 C.P.C. should be raised before the appropriate court and the scope of interference under Section 47 C.P.C. is limited.

Sibghat Ullah Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2. This revision by judgment debtor is directed against order dated 1.5.1999 passed by 8th A.D.J. Faizabad in Misc. Case No. 356 of 1997, M/S Kripal Cloth House Vs. M/S Harnam Singh Kartar Singh, through which application of the applicant under Section 47 C.P.C. filed in execution case no.1 of 1997 was rejected.

3. There was a dispute regarding payment/non payment of amount for the goods/clothes in between the parties hence the matter was taken up by the arbitrator as per arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties and the arbitrator gave an award against the applicant. The award was filed before a Delhi court for making the same rule of the court. The matter was registered as O.S. no.175 of 1993. Notices were issued to the applicant who was defendant in the said suit. However, applicant did not file objections within time hence A.D.J. Delhi through order/decree dated 30.11.1996 made the award rule of the court. Thereafter application for transfer of the decree was filed under order 21 Rule 6 C.P.C. before A.D.J. Delhi and the decree was transferred for execution to the Court of 8th A.D.J. Faizabad where it was registered as execution case no.1 of 1997. Decree was sought to be executed against the immovable property/shop of the applicant.

4. Applicant contended that it had no knowledge of the award and the arbitrator had not sent any notice and applicant's objections were rejected by Delhi Court only on the ground of delay. It was also contended by the applicant that earlier applicant had filed O.S. no.106 of 1992 for declaration against the opposite parties which was decreed by 2nd Additional Munsif Faizabad on 30.4.1992 declaring that applicant was liable to pay only Rs.6500/- to the opposite party in this revision and applicant was always ready to pay the said amount to the opposite party/ decree holder and the decree passed in the said suit operated as res judicita. However, the said suit was decreed ex parte.

5. Decree holders/ opposite parties in this revision contended that in O.S. no.106 of 1992 (in which they were defendants) they did not appear and vakalatnama on their behalf containing their forged signatures was filed and subsequently they had filed suit for cancellation of decree passed in 1992 suit. Applicant admitted that Delhi Court had sent notice to it, however, its objections under Section 30 of old arbitration Act were not considered as they were filed late.

6. Regarding the decree passed in O.S. no.106 of 1992 the court below held that as there was agreement of arbitration between the parties hence the civil court had no jurisdiction to pass declaratory decree.

7. I do not find least error in the impugned order. Whatever objections applicant was taking, could and should have been taken by him before the Delhi Court. Objections under Sections 47 C.P.C. are not in the nature of appeal not even review. The scope of interference under Section 47 C.P.C. is micro scopic vide Dhurandhar Prasad Singh v. Jai Prakash University, AIR 2001 SC 2552

8. Supreme Court in Motilal Jain vs Smt.Ramdasi Devi AIR 2000 SC 1238 has held that if there are two conflicting judgments then later operates as res judicata.

9. Accordingly, there is no merit in the revision hence it is dismissed.