JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Pritish Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The present civil revision has been filed assailing the order dated 30/01/2019 passed by the District Judge, Lucknow whereby he has rejected the application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code preferred by the revisionist. The controversy in the present case centers around the validity of an arbitration award made by the arbitrator Sri Anirudh Mithal, General Manager, Indian Railways (Retd.) dated 07/05/2008.

3. Sri Pritish Kumar, learned Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that National Council for Young Men’s Christian Association of India had executed a lease deed in respect of the property situated at 13, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow in favour of revisionist and his grandfather Sri Kishori Lal Agarwal for a period of 65 years. He submitted that the property was to be developed in the manner prescribed, and the lessees were also entitled to the gains in profits which may accrue from the said property. On 19/11/1986 Sri Motilal Agarwal, the father of the revisionist executed a deed of relinquishment declaring that the said property was and has been the absolute and exclusive property of Sri Kishori Lal Agarwal and the revisionist, who are the exclusive lessees thereof from the society.

4. Subsequently, Sri Kishori Lal Agarwal and the revisionist entered into an agreement on 19/12/1986 providing that Wing “A” of the property will be exclusively developed by Sri Kishori Lal Agarwal and Wing “B” will be developed exclusively by the revisionist. The revisionist’s father Sri Motilal Agarwal died on 31/12/2007 leaving behind his wife, Smt Sarojini Agarwal (opposite party No. 2), son -Sanjay Agarwal (Revisionist), son Rahul Agarwal (opposite party no.1) and Smt Pallavi Gupta, daughter (opposite party No. 3).

5. After the death of Sri Motilal Agarwal, there was dispute amongst the family with regard to the distribution of his assets and more specifically with regard to the leased property situated at 13,Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow. It has been submitted that Sri Anirudh Mithal was a friend of revisionist’s father and he intervened to make efforts to amicably resolve the disputes and differences among the family members. It is on his intervention that the award/family settlement dated 07/05/208 was passed after several meetings, consultations and after going through various documents.

6. Opposite Party no.1 filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1996”) in the Court of District Judge, Lucknow which was rejected by means of order dated 01/01/2013 against which an appeal has been preferred before this Court being First Appeal No. 48 of 2013.

7. The award dated 07/05/2008 was never challenged before any Court as per provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 1996, and subsequently the opposite party No. 1 also filed an application for execution of the award dated 07/05/2010 which was registered as Execution Case No. 43 of 2011. The revisionist filed his objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code inter-alia stating that no arbitration agreement was executed between the parties and the alleged award was not an outcome of arbitration proceedings and therefore could not be executed. He also submitted that the said award was a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be executed as an arbitration award.

8. The First appeal preferred by opposite party No. 1 filed against the rejection of his application under section 9 of the Act of 1996 came up for hearing before this Court on 01/09/2016 on which date considering the fact that the application for execution was pending before the District Judge, wherein objections under Section 47 of the CPC had also been filed by the revisionist, were pending consideration, directed the District Judge, Lucknow to dispo