THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3869 of 2014

ORDER:

Challenging the order dated 29.10.2012 passed in E.A.No.137 of 2012 in E.P.No.67 of 2011 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent, who is the Judgment Debtor (J.Dr.), filed the Execution Application under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, challenging the maintainability of the Execution Petition (E.P.) filed by the petitioner, the Decree Holder (D.Hr.). The respondent contended that the petitioner had already received his rightful share of 1000 square yards as per the original arbitral award dated 14.12.1987 and that the relief sought in the E.P. exceeded the petitioner’s entitlement under the subsequent interim award dated 08- 08-1995. The respondent argued that the petitioner had alienated the very plots he was now seeking to enforce through execution, thereby rendering the decree inexecutable and contrary to the terms of the arbitration agreement.

3. On the other hand, the petitioner opposed the EA, asserting that the respondent had agreed to transfer two plots as per the interim award and had even acknowledged this in various proceedings, including before the High Court. The petitioner claimed that he had the option to receive either two plots on the West and South-West of Plot No.1 or one plot to the South of Plot No.1. Since the southern plot had already been sold, he sought execution of the alternative two plots. He further argued that the respondent was attempting to mislead the court and that the objections raised had already been considered and rejected in earlier proceedings. The petitioner relied on the report of the Advocate Commissioner to support his claim that the plots in question were identifiable and available.

4. The trial Court after examining the documentary evidence, including registered sale deeds and the report of the Advocate Commissioner, allowed the Execution Application and dismissed the Execution Petition holding that both Plot No.1 and Plot No.2 had already been sold— Plot No.1 by the respondent in 1995 and Plot No.2 by the petitioner himself in 2007 during the pendency of the E.P. The trial Court held that the petitioner had already received and alienated his full entitlement of 1000 square yards under the original award and had thereby violated the terms of the interim award. It also noted that the petitioner’s own documents confirmed the absence of any remaining plots to be executed. The trial Court rejected the plea of res judicata, as the earlier EA had been dismissed for default and not on merits. Further, the trial Court concluded that the decree was not executable due to the petitioner’s own conduct and the absence of any remaining property to satisfy the award. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner/Decree Holder filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Heard Sri K Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Yellapragada Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the executing Court is erroneous, unjust, and has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, warranting its reversal and that the executing Court exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into factual matters beyond the scope of the arbitral award, particularly regarding the alleged sale of 1000 square yards of land by the petitioner. He further submitted that the award, which had been made a rule of Court, clearly directed the respondent to execute a sale deed in favor of the petitioner. Since the respondent failed to comply with this direction, the executing Court ought to have enforced the award rather than dismissing the execution petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the executing Court had no authority to re-examine the merits or factual disputes alr