AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
L. N. Mittal, J.—Judgment debtor-M/s. Khosa Rice Mills (JD) has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 06.02.2010 Annexure P-3 and order dated 20.08.2011 Annexure P-6 passed by learned District Judge, Ferozepur. Respondents/decree holders (DHs) filed execution petition on 11.06.2008 for execution of arbitration award dated 30.10.2007. In the said execution petition, JD filed objections that he had already filed application u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the Act) and, therefore, the execution petition cannot proceed.
Learned District Judge vide impugned order dated 06.02.2010 Annexure P-3 dismissed the said objections filed by the JD. The execution petition proceeded thereafter, but was ultimately dismissed on 28.07.2010 due to failure of the DHs to file list of property of JD for attachment in the execution petition.
Decree holders filed second execution petition on 02.11.2010. JD again filed objections to the same effect that the execution cannot proceed in view of pendency of application of JD u/s 34 of the Act. The said objections have been dismissed by learned District Judge vide impugned order dated 20.08.2011 Annexure P-6. Feeling aggrieved JD has filed this revision petition, assailing both orders Annexures P-3 and P-6.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that on filing of application u/s 34 of the Act to challenge the arbitration award, execution of the said award automatically goes in abeyance. The legal preposition canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. Order dated 06.02.2010 Annexure P-3 having not been challenged earlier attained finality. Consequently, similar objections could not be filed subsequently by the petitioner in the second execution petition. Therefore, both the orders cannot be assailed in this revision petition. It is worth mentioning that the instant revision petition has been filed on 21.05.2012 i.e. two years three months after the passing of order Annexure P-3 and nine months after passing of order Annexure P-6. Even after passing of order Annexure P-6, the petitioner did not approach this Court with promptness. There has been delay of nine months even thereafter in filing this revision petition. The revision petition is thus barred by delay and laches also. No limitation period may have been prescribed for filing revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it does not mean that a litigant can approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India any time according to his whims and fancies. He has to be vigilant and has to approach the Court within reasonable time, which may be said to be around three months which is the normal limitation period for filing revision petition. Challenge to order Annexure P-6 is barred by delay and laches and is also barred by earlier order Annexure P-3 whereas the challenge to order Annexure P-3 was never made earlier and has now been made after two years three months and the same cannot be entertained. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is found meritless and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.