BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD Vs. HARENDRA NATH KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the aforesaid order chiefly on two grounds:-

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of the aforesaid contentions, submitted that on bare perusal, of Section 36 of the Act, which is the relevant provision for enforcement of award, it would be manifest that the application for enforcement of award can be entertained either after expiry of the time for making application to set aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Act or if such application having been made, it has been refused by the court concerned. In the present case, since the Miscellaneous Case No.14 of 2007 for setting aside the award has already been filed before Sub-Judge-I, Patna, the execution case should have been stayed awaiting result of such application. It has further been submitted that the Additional District and Sessions Judge, not being covered within the meaning of "Court' as per the definition under Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act, would not have jurisdiction to proceed with the execution case. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards the definition provided under Section 2 (1) (e) of the Act to impress upon that the "Court" means the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district which is a Court of Sub-Judge having been unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the suit. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, though being superior in hierarchy, but having got no original jurisdiction for deciding the suit, is not a Court with the definition aforesaid and hence is not competent to enforce the award under Section 36 of the Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon three reported judgments of this Court rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Md. Sadique Vs. State of Bihar, 2000 4 PLJR 814, Thakur Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and another, 2000 4 PLJR 843 and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Jialal Kishorilal,2010 3 BLJ 129.