The legal heirs of a deceased respondent can be held liable for the enforcement of an award, and the provisions of Order XXX, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code apply in determining the parties against whom a suit can be maintained.

ORDER :

1. Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioners have filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 1-11-2018 passed by the XVth Additional District Judge (Executing Court), Indore rejecting application filed under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. Facts of the case in short, are as under:-

(a) The respondent No. 1 filed the claim of Rs. 3,18,851.00 against the respondent No. 2. The dispute was referred to the sole Arbitrator Shri G.R. Pandya, District and Sessions Judge (Retd.). Vide award dated 26-9-2001, the claim was allowed and the respondent No. 2 was directed to pay the amount of Rs. 3,59,644.00 along with interest @ 15% per annum from 26-9-2001 till its realization.

(b) The respondent No. 2 filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the District Judge and the same was registered as Arbitration Case No. 34/2001.

(c) During pendency of the aforesaid case, the sole Proprietor of the respondent No. 2 firm Shri Radheshyam Agrawal expired on 22-2-2010. Thereafter the present petitioners were bought on record as legal heirs. Vide order dated 5-11-2012, the 7th Additional District Judge, Indore had dismissed the application filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

(d) After passing of the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 1 filed an execution case before the Executing Court on 7-1-2018 against the respondent No. 2 and the petitioners.

(e) After receipt of the summons of execution case, the present petitioners appeared and filed an application under section 151 of the Code for rejection of execution case. The said application was opposed by the respondent No. 1 by filing reply and vide order dated 1-11-2018 the said application has been rejected, hence the present petition before this Court.

3. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent No. 1 filed the claim case against the respondent No. 2 alone without impleading the Proprietor i.e. Shri Radheshyam Agrawal as codefendant. The award was passed in the year 2001 and thereafter the present execution case is filed in the year 2018, therefore, the same is barred under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963. He further submits that under section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award becomes enforceable only after expiry of period of limitation for filing objection under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. There was no stay by the District Judge in Arbitration Case No. 34/2001. The respondent No. 1 did not file executing proceedings for more than 12 years, therefore, the present proceedings are barred under Article 136 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

4. Shri Sethi further submits that Radheshyam Agrawal was not party to the award as well as the in proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, therefore, the award cannot be executed against the present petitioners who are legal heirs of Radheshyam Agrawal. The present petitioners were brought on record as legal representatives under the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code only to pursue the pending lis between the parties but whether they are liable to satisfy the award or the execution proceedings can be initiated against them is a debatable question which is required to be answered by this Court. He further submits that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree which is a settled principle of law. The award was passed against the respondent No. 2 and same cannot be enforced against the present petitioners.

5. Per contra, Shri P.J. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the respondent No. 2 was the sole Proprietor Firm and before the Arbitrator Shri Radheshyam Agrawal contested the case on behalf of the firm. He has referred the provisions of Order XXX, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code under which the suit is maintainable against any person who is