ORDER:-

The instant Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 27.08.2018 in E.A.No.1 of 2018 in E.P.No.64 of 2017 in ARB/SS.268/2015 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs. & STs. (PoA) Act –Cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

2. The application field by the petitioner under Sec.47 of C.P.C., was dismissed by the learned Judge observing that the petitioner did not apply before the executing Court the full satisfaction certificate within the stipulated period of 30 days, in terms of Or.XXI Rule 2 CPC, therefore, the petition filed under Section .47 of the CPC is not maintainable.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the there was exchange of emails between the petitioner and the respondent. After receipt of the e-mail from the Manager of the petitioner company, the petitioner has remitted the payment, despite receipt of the same, it is contended that the D.Hr. Company went ahead in seeking execution of the award.

4. It is contended that the award in the case was passed under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Therefore, till filing of the E.P., there is no Court within the meaning of the provisions of Order XXI C.P.C., so as to file the required application under the provisions Order XXI Rule 2. He thus contends that the petitioner herein, having discharged the liability, cannot be saddled with the liability for the second time. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relies on the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Satayanarayana Construction Company, [2008(2) ALT 1]

5. Considered the rival submissions.

6. In the facts of the case, the contention of the petitioner is that he has discharged the liability under the arbitration award through a cheque dated 19-10-2015. It is contended that having received the said amounts, the D.Hr. should not have proceeded with the E.P. And it would cause prejudice to the petitioner if he were to be directed to pay the same amounts once again in the E.P.

7. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the learned Judge ought to have, given the peculiar circumstances of the case, i.e., execution of the award passed in arbitration proceedings, considered the application filed under Section 47 of C.P.C. on its own merits, in terms of the provisions of the said section, instead of dismissing the same on technical grounds.

8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the order under revision requires to be set aside, and the I.A. be remitted to the E.P. Court for adjudication of the issue afresh on merits after due opportunity to both the parties. It is needless to observe that the observations made herein above are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition.

9. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, the order dated

27.08.2018 in E.A.No.1 of 2018 in E.P.No.64 of 2017 in ARB/SS.268/2015, is set aside and accordingly E.A.No.1 of 2018 in E.P.No.64 of 2017 is remitted to the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs. & STs. (PoA) Act – Cum -VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, for adjudication afresh, in terms of the provisions of Section 47 C.P.C.

_______________________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 18.10.2024 MVK

237 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Civil Revision Petition No.21 of 2019 Date: 18.10.2024 MVK