AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeal arises from order dated 24.05.2016 dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5649/2016 declining to interfere with the orders in execution proceedings for enforcement of the award passed in arbitration.
Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') provides for enforcement of an arbitration award in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as if it were a decree of the court.
The writ petition was filed styled as under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur while deciding the objections raised in reply to the application under Order 21, Rule 11 for execution of the arbitration award dated 19.06.2015. The objections were rejected.
It is apparent on the face of the record that the appellant was primarily aggrieved with the order passed by a civil court in an execution proceedings exercising powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. Irrespective of the nomenclature of the writ petition, it was therefore clearly instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution.
In Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 1 after considering precedents it have been held as follows:-
"18. The aforesaid authoritative pronouncement makes it clear as day that an order passed by a civil court can only be assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the parameters of challenge have been clearly laid down by this Court in series of decisions which have been referred to by a three Judge Bench in Radhey Shyam, which is a binding precedent. Needless to emphasise that once it is exclusively assailable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no intra-court appeal is maintainable.
45.2 The order passed by the civil court is only amenable to be scrutinised by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is different from Article 226 of the Constitution and as per the pronouncement in Radhey Shyam, no writ can be issued against the order passed by the civil court and, therefore, no letters patent appeal would be maintainable."
The appeal is therefore held to be not maintainable. The appellant is at liberty to pursue its remedies in accordance with law.
The Registrar General is directed to arrange proper training of stamp reporters as we find that in the present appeal no defect was pointed out with regard to the maintainability of the appeal.
The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.