High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Biri Singh v. M/S Nand Auto Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. & Others - CIVIL REVISION No. 469 of 2006  RD-AH 20100 (28 November 2006)
Court No. 24
Civil Revision No. 469 of 2006
Biri Singh Vs. M/S Nand Auto Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. & others
Hon'ble Umeshwar Pandey, J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.
This revision challenges the order dated 4.9.2006 whereby the petitioner's objection under Section 47 C.P.C. has been dismissed by the executing court.
An award in Annexure-1 was put in execution before the court below in which these objections have been filed stating that the vehicle in question for which the loan was taken by the decree-holder prior to the arbitration proceedings. The vehicle's market value was not less than Rs. Four Lacs at the time its custody was taken, but no adjustment of the value of the vehicle was done by the Arbitrator while making the award. In fact, no amount was due for payment against the judgment-debtors-objectors and the award itself is defective and could not be executed. The objections were also that the executing court should take cognizance of that adjustment and pass orders rejecting the said execution application.
The executing court while considering these objections found that such sort of pleadings were not to be considered by the executing court and it is not expected to go behind the decree. If some adjustment which was to be necessarily made should have been duly recorded at the time of making the award. Under these circumstances the objections have been rejected.
The learned counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that even though no adjustment of the amount of the value of the vehicle was made before making of the award, the executing court under Section 47 C.P.C. is not debarred from making that adjustment. The executing court should not have rejected such pertinent objection of the applicant/judgment debtor and the order requires interference.
I do not agree with the submissions of the learned counsel. The award clearly stipulates certain monitory liability of the judgment debtor towards opposite-party decree holder thus passing a decree to that extent. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was allegedly taken possession of by the decree holder prior to the claim preferred before the arbitration/Tribunal and any adjustment if at all in that context was to be done should have been done by the Tribunal itself. In spite of that if the Tribunal did not make adjustment and the decree holder/applicant was aggrieved, the recourse open for him was of filing objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In the present case nothing has been done in that regard. The executing court is not supposed to go behind the decree. If a money decree is there it has to be executed. Of course the executing court has to record adjustment of such money only in case some payment out side the court has been done after passing of the decree. Therefore, in this view of the matter if the court below has found that the objections are not maintainable, the order cannot be said to be erroneous in any respect as to occasion an interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
The revision has no merits and is hereby dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.