IMPORTANT POINT
Execution of decree – Although Objector is not party to arbitral proceedings, he can seek and obtain relief if Award has not been given fairly.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.—The Order of the Court of the Learned District Judge, Special Division - I, Sikkim, at Gangtok, dated 07-04-2017, in Civil Execution Case No.03 of 2015, rejecting the prayer for execution of the Arbitral Award and declaring the Award a nullity, is being assailed by the Petitioner/Decree Holder under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. An application filed by the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 as Objectors to the Execution Application filed by the Petitioner before the Learned Executing Court was registered as Civil Misc. Case No.23 of 2015 and was also disposed of by the above assailed Order.

2. The questions requiring determination by this Court are as follows;

(i) What is the locus standi of the Objectors? and

(ii) What is the remedy available to the Objectors who were not a party to the Deed of Settlement dated 11-06-2013 and a subsequent Memorandum of Family Arrangement dated 24-06-2013?

3. The facts leading to the Arbitral Decree are that the Petitioner-Decree Holder and the Respondent No.1-Judgment Debtor are siblings, being the children of one Late Banechand Singhi. They mutually agreed to divide the properties described in Schedule “A” of the “Deed of Settlement”, executed between them, at Gangtok, dated 11-06-2013, by way of transfer of Schedule “B” property therein to the Judgment Debtor and Schedule “C” property to the Decree Holder. The Deed of Settlement was prepared between the siblings allegedly without the knowledge of Ajay Kumar Singhi, Respondent No.2 herein, who is the son of Respondent No.1. On 13-06-2013, the Respondent No.2 along with Respondent Nos.3 and 4, being the sons of Respondent No.2, submitted an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), seeking a hearing, in the event any person sought transfer and registration of their building mentioned in the Schedule to the application. The SDM accordingly heard the matter on 01-07-2013 and vide Order dated 13-02-2014 advised the parties to approach the competent Civil Court. The Deed of Settlement dated 11-06-2013 was entered into between the Decree Holder and Judgment Debtor prior to their objection, but this fact was not revealed by the siblings, either to the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4/Objectors, or to the SDM on 01-07-2013, the date of first hearing of the objection of the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. A second agreement was entered into between the Decree Holder and Judgment Debtor on 24-06-2013, at Chennai, titled “Memorandum of Family Arrangement”. At Clause (V) of the arrangement, a Mediation clause was inserted, wherein it was agreed that all further disputes and differences arising amongst the parties relating to the agreement would be referred to the Sole Arbitrator, namely, one Kesari Chand Galada, said to be the father-in-law of the Decree Holder’s son.

(i) An Arbitral Award was passed on 30-01-2014 by the said Arbitrator having been asked to adjudicate upon the disputes between the siblings regarding claims made by the Decree Holder against the Judgment Debtor, with regard to the possession of her share of the property.

(ii) Pursuant to the Arbitral Award, Civil Execution Case No.03 of 2015 was filed by the Decree Holder/Petitioner before the Learned Executing Court, which vide Order dated 14-05-2015 ordered inter alia that the possession of the Scheduled property be delivered to the Decree Holder. The Nazir of the Court was ordered to assist the Decree Holder by putting her in possession of the Scheduled property and to submit compliance report.

(iii) Following this Order, on 16-06-2015, the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 as Objectors, filed an application under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 101, Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, the “CPC”) and Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, “Arbitration Act”), which was registered as Civil Misc. Case No.23 of 2015. The Objectors averred that they have an interest