AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner/original decree-holder has filed this revision petition against the order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Chhindwara in Civil M.J.C. No.5/2014, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 114 for review of the order dated 20.10.2011 passed by the same Court in Arbitration Execution Case No.3/2012 has been dismissed.
In Civil Appeals No.5847-5848/2011, on 20.07.2011 Hon''ble Apex Court partially allowed the above-mentioned appeals filed by the present petitioner and following direction was given in para No.9 of its order:- "If the amount due as per the award is not paid or deposited in the trial Court within three months from today, the appellant will be entitled to interest on the amount outstanding at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the award till the date of payment. Parties to bear their respective costs."?
In compliance to above-mentioned order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the respondent deposited the payable amount on 20.10.2011 in the above-mentioned Court and thereafter Arbitration Execution Case No.3/2012 (M/s. B.D. Sharma Vs. Western Coalfields Limited) was dismissed on 17.07.2012 in presence of both of the parties due to full satisfaction. Present petitioner filed Review Petition under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the above- mentioned Court on the grounds that the period granted to the respondent for payment of the amount was erroneously calculated and the order dated 17.07.2012 was passed in absence of counsel for the decree-holder and this defects are apparent on the face of record. Thus, it was prayed that the final order passed on 17.07.2012 in Arbitration Execution Case No.3/2012 be reviewed and the respondent be ordered to pay the amount of interest also in compliance to above-mentioned direction of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The Review Petition was opposed by the respondent before the above-mentioned Court on the grounds that the relating order dated 17.07.2012 passed in Arbitration Execution Case No.3/2012 was passed in presence of the learned counsel for the decree-holder and no any error has been committed by the Court in calculating the period granted by the Hon''ble Supreme Court for payment as according to specific provision of Section 15 of Limitation Act 1963, in calculating the limitation period, the date on which the order was passed, is to be excluded.
It has been observed by the learned lower Court in impugned order passed in the order-sheet dated 17.07.2012 in Arbitration Execution Case No.3//2012, the presence of learned counsel Shri Anil Singh Thakur for the decree-holder was marked and it was also admitted by him that the total amount of the award has been paid and no amount is due, then on his admission the arbitration execution proceedings were ended in total satisfaction.
It is significant to mention here that with revision petition no any copy of order dated 17.07.2012 passed in Arbitration Execution Case No.3/2012 has been filed. It is well settled that the facts recorded by the Court in order-sheet should deemed to be correct and to controvert the fact mentioned in the order-sheet of the Court, the affidavit of relating advocate should have been filed. It is clear from the impugned order that no any affidavit of Shri Anil Singh Thakur, advocate who remained present on 17.07.2012 for the decree-holder in above-mentioned Arbitration Execution Case was filed and the calculation of period prima- facie appears to be correct looking to the specific provision of Section 15 of Limitation Act 1963. It is clear from the certified copy of the order that Review Petition was filed by a different advocate before the Court concerned. Review Petition could be granted only when prima-facie apparent error appears from face of the record. It is clear that the above- mentioned Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in dismissing the Review Petition.
The revision petition devoid of merits, which is hereby dismissed.