JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr.Prashant Singh Gaur and Mr.Vikrant Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Virendra Mishra, assisted by Ms. Shraddha Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.2 being merely the Court concerned and being a proforma party, notices are dispensed with.

2. Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 01.04.2023 passed in Misc. Case No.48 of 2023(Execution Case No.94 of 2020) whereby objections preferred by petitioner being judgment debtor, purportedly under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the parties to the dispute entered into a builders agreement dated 10.11.1996 with regard to the property in question but due to disputes arising out of the aforesaid agreement, the same was referred for adjudication to the sole arbitrator in an application filed under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1996). Award in the same was pronounced on 12.01.2007 against petitioner and 19 others. Father of petitioner filed an Application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 bearing Regular Suit No.11 of 2007 which was dismissed by means of judgment and order dated 25.07.2012. Against aforesaid judgment and order, Appeal under Section 37 of the Act was preferred bearing F.A.F.O. No.1040 of 2012 in which initially interim orders were passed but the same was dismissed in default of appearance on 30.01.2017. Restoration Application was also dismissed for want of prosecution whereafter a second application for restoration was filed. The same was also dismissed although a third Restoration Application is pending consideration.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that subsequently an Application for execution of award was filed on 03.11.2017 in which petitioner being judgment debtor, filed an Application styled to be under Section 47 of the Code. It is submitted that the award of arbitrator was with regard to movable as well as immovable properties with movable being in the nature of a money decree. It is submitted that in the objections filed by petitioner, it was specifically stated that the relief as being prayed for in execution proceedings was not in consonance with the award with regard to immovable property inasmuch as possession of the properties being sought in execution proceedings were not decreed in favour of the decree holder. It is further submitted that objections regarding insufficiency of stamp duty pertaining to the award were also raised in the objections. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the award, learned sole arbitrator has specifically not awarded possession of five shops in the property in question and therefore their claim in execution proceedings would amount to granting a relief which has not been granted in the award itself. It is submitted that however by means of impugned order, objections regarding insufficiency of stamp duty were rejected on the ground that the aforesaid objections were earlier raised and rejected and, therefore, there is no question of adjudicating the same again. It is submitted that the other objections raised by the petitioner were rejected only on the ground that an Application under Section 47 of the Code is not maintainable in proceedings seeking execution of an arbitration award.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that once Section 36 of the Act of 1996 specifically provides execution of an award in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as if it was a decree of the court, then naturally the execution has to be sought under Order 21 of the Code due to which objections under Section 47 of the Code are clearly maintainable. It is thus submitted that the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be made applicable in a piecemeal basis and either applies in its entirety or not at all. It is therefore, submitted that