SHIVDEV SINGH SANDHU Vs. SURJIT SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 11.1.2012 whereby the objection to the petition under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act filed on behalf of the respondents against execution of the arbitral award dated 7.5.1999 ordering for specific performance of the agreement dated 12.04.1999, has been allowed and the petition filed under Section 36 has been dismissed.

(2.) The agreement dated 104.1999 was entered between Surjit Singh, Arvinder Kaur, Shiv Dev Singh and Jatinder Kaur regarding House No.660-B, Mall Road, Model Town, Jalandhar. Since the agreement contained arbitration clause, the dispute was referred to the arbitrators namely Jasbir Singh, Joginder Singh and Joginder Kapoor. Though the respondents disputed the reference of dispute to the arbitrators and had also filed suit against the award being passed on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. As per the contents of the award, the petitioner-vendee was required to pay a sum of Rs.7, 10, 500/- to Surjit Singh and his wife Arvinder Kaur within a period of two months from the date of award enforceable being a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure. As per the contention, execution of the aforementioned award was filed in the year 2002 but later on it was again revived in 2011 as previous court had no jurisdiction.

(3.) Mr. Naresh Kaushal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the objections at the instance of the respondents against the enforcement of the award have erroneously been accepted by the Court below as they were not maintainable. The respondents had challenged the award in the civil court on the ground that the same had been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, which is pending adjudication, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioners to pay amount of Rs.7, 10, 500/- to the respondents i.e. Surjit Singh and Arvinder Kaur, thus, the award could not be rendered inexecutable, for, the respondents had not moved any application for rescission of the contract as per the provisions of Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. In the other revision petition, specific objection regarding the jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit was taken and issue in this regard was framed. This Court allowed the revision petition bearing No.4325 of 2006 treating the aforementioned issue as preliminary. Since the litigation was pending, the amount as ordered had not been deposited nor any occasion arose for extension of time.