Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neetu Singh vs Neeraj Grover And Others on 16 June, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082173
2023:PHHC:082173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
214
Date of decision: 16.06.2023
CR-3630-2023 (O&M)
NEETU SINGH ......Petitioner
VERSUS
NEERAJ GROVER AND OTHERS .......Respondents
(2)
CR-3644-2023 (O&M)
NEETU SINGH ......Petitioner
VERSUS
NEERAJ GROVER AND OTHERS .......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
*****
Present: - Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vipul Sachdeva, Advocate
for respondent No.3 in both cases.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
CM-10853-CII-2023 in CR-3630-2023 &
CM-10944-CII-2023 in CR-3644-2023
Applications are allowed as prayed for.
MAIN CASES
Both these Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by a
common order since the disputes arises from two separate orders passed in
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082173
2023:PHHC:082173
CR-3630-2023 (O&M) & CR-3644-2023 (O&M) -2-
two separate execution petitions bearing Execution Case No. 618-2020 and
619 of 2020 respectively between the same parties & pending before the
same Court. The grounds of challenge are also identical. Facts are noticed
from CR-3630-2023.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that an arbitral award had
been passed against the petitioner and respondent No.3 by the sole Arbitrator
in Arbitration case No. 103 of 2019. Aggrieved of the said arbitral award,
objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act, 1996 were
preferred by the petitioner before the Additional District Judge, Gurugram.
However, vide judgment dated 13.05.2023, the objection petition was
dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Gurugram. The Zimni order
recorded for the proceeding reads as under:
"Arguments heard. Vide my separate judgment of
even date the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act filed by applicant Neetu Singh stands
dismissed. Memo of cost be prepared. File be consigned to
record room."
He submits that the certified copy of the judgment was,
however, not delivered despite the petitioner having applied for the same on
the same date.
The same Court was also seized of the execution petition that
had been filed by the respondents and vide a separate order of the same date
i.e. 13.05.2023 in the execution petition, it was ordered as under:
"Arguments heard. Since objections filed
separately by respondent no.2 have been dismissed and since
application moved by respondent no. 1 for restoration of
objection petition has been dismissed, hence in execution of the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082173
2023:PHHC:082173
CR-3630-2023 (O&M) & CR-3644-2023 (O&M) -3-
award Reader attached to the court of undersigned is appointed
as LC in this case. He is directed to execute the sale deed in
favour of applicant/decree holder and to do all other necessary
formalities incidental to execution of the same. Fee of the LC is
assessed as Rs.5000/-. Decree holder is directed to furnish the
proposed sale deed. Warrant of attachment be also issued
against other properties of respondents to recover the amount
mentioned in para b of the prayer clause of execution petition
no. 619-2020. Now the case is adjourned to 21.7.2023 for
awaiting report."
It has been informed that the Reader to the Court of the
Additional District Judge, Guguram was appointed as the Local
Commissioner for execution of the sale deed and a further direction was
issued to attach other properties of the petitioner so as to recover the balance
amount as awarded.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was
deliberately not handed over the copy of the judgment so as to deprive him
of his right to prefer an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 and that the respondents are deliberately avoiding
appearance before this Court to defeat the statutory right of the petitioner to
avail the remedy of appeal and to seek execution of the award in the
meanwhile. He submits that respondent No.1 ran way at the time when the
summon was sought to be served upon him while respondent No.2 has
already been served through his wife. However, they have chosen not to
appear despite being aware of the present proceedings.
Counsel for respondent No.3 has already entered appearance.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082173
2023:PHHC:082173
CR-3630-2023 (O&M) & CR-3644-2023 (O&M) -4-
Counsel for the petitioner submits that his prayer is currently
restricted only to the extent of staying further proceedings in the execution,
even though the sale deed has already been executed pursuant to the order
passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurugram, for a period of 03 weeks
so as to enable the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 37 of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and to avail his remedies as per law.
Since the respondents have chosen not to appear in the
proceedings before this Court despite being aware of the proceedings and
taking into consideration the circumstances noticed above, I deem it
appropriate to dispose of these petitions without awaiting any further for the
respondents and to balance the competing rights, with a direction that that
award of the sole Arbitrator shall not be executed in execution petition Nos.
618 of 2020 and 619 of 2020 for a period of 03 weeks from today or till
hearing of their appeal, whichever is earlier, so as to enable the petitioner to
take recourse to his statutory remedies in accordance with law. Further, the
respondents shall also not create any third party right viz. a viz. the property
for which the sale deed has already been executed in their favour till the
period of three weeks as noticed above.
The revision petitions are disposed of.
(VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
JUNE 16, 2023 JUDGE
Vishal Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082173
4 of 4
