UNION OF INDIA Vs. R S SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the Union of India against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 8.7.1994 refusing to stay the execution of a decree pursuant to an award made a Rule of the Court. This was on the ground that the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code do not apply in view of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Bactchala Balaiah (AIR 1985 Andhra Pradesh 52). What happened in this case is that an award was passed on 18.6.1993 and a petition for making the award a Rule of the Court was filed as S. No. 1584/93. In those proceedings, on 21.1.1994 the Court recorded an order that Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate, took notice on behalf of the Union of India on that date. If that be so, the period of 30 days for filing objections would expire by 20.1.1994. As no objections were filed within 30 days, the Court passed an order on 9.3.1994 making the award a Rule of the Court. It appears that the respondent informed the Union of India on 8.4.1994 (videletter) that a decree has also been passed in terms of the award. Even so, the Union of India took three months time to file an objection application to the award. These objections were filed in July,1994 with an application for condonation of delay. An application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code was also filed. In the meantime, the respondent filed an execution petition for executing the aforesaid decree. In the execution proceedings counsel for the judgment debtor- Union of India prayed for stay of execution on the , ground that the aforesaid three applications were pending.

(2.) By the impugned order the learned Single Judge rejected the prayer of the counsel for the Union of India for stay of the execution proceedings till the aforesaid applications are decided on the ground that there is no question of filing any application under Order 9, Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code in this case inasmuch as when the award was made a Rule of the Court on 9.3.1994 it was not an ex parte decree. He further held that when the objections were not filed within the period of limitation, the Court was bound to pass a decree and such a decree could not be called an ex parte decree. Learned Single Judge has followed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court cited above in holding so.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to satisfy us that the view taken by. the learned Single Judge is wrong. The decree is not an ex parte decree. We fail to see how after a decree is passed objections to the award could be permitted to be filed.