MOHAN KUMAR VERMA Vs. RAJ KISHORE MATHUR (ORISSA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision is directed against the order dated 05.11.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Bhawanipatna dismissing an application under Section 47 read with Section-151 Code of Civil Procedure (M.J.C. No. 18 of 1999) filed by the Petitioner-defendant-judgment debtor for correction of the decree passed in Title Suit No. 53 of 1994.

(2.) The Petitioner was the Defendant in Title Suit No. 53 of 1994 and the opposite party was the Plaintiff. After getting decree, the opposite party-decree holder filed Execution Case No. 6 of 1996 for its execution. In that Execution Case, the immovable properties of the Petitioner-judgment debtor were attached and sold in public auction and such sales were confirmed in the name of decree holder-opposite party. At this stage, the Petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 18 of 1999 with a prayer for setting aside the decree on various grounds.

(3.) The Petitioner's case is that in Title Suit No. 53 of 1994 an arbitrator was appointed for resolution of the disputes between the parties which arose during their partnership business transaction. The arbitrator passed an ex-parte award which was also made the rule of the Court ex-parte. Soon after such ex-parte decree, the opposite party-decree holder filed Execution Case No. 6 of 1996 to execute the ex-parte decree. The Petitioner filed Civil Revision No. 349 of 1996 before this Court to set aside the ex-parte award as well as ex-parte decree. But this Court directed the Petitioner to deposit Rs. 6,00,000/- before the court and after deposit of such amount the ex-parte decree would be set aside and the arbitrator would rehear the matter by giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The Petitioner could not deposit the amount. In the meantime, in the Execution Case the opposite party-decree holder filed M.J.C. No. 33 of 1996 and by an order in such Misc. Case the immovable and movable properties of the Petitioner were attached. The Petitioner filed a petition before the executing Court for vacation of the attachment order and to allow him to deposit the amount as directed. In the said petition, he alleged about suppression of many facts by the decree-holder before the arbitrator for which many irregularities have crept in the ex-parte award.