M/S Rao Construction Company vs U.O.I.And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:38379)
2025 Latest Caselaw 11724 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

M/S Rao Construction Company vs U.O.I.And Anr. (2025:Rj-Jd:38379) on 27 August, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:38379]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 301/2009

M/s Rao Construction Company21, Swarushi Apartment Doctor
Colony, Opposite C.P. Nagar Gath Lodia Ahmedabad
Through its power of Attorney Holder Shri Nand Kishore Prasad
S/o Late Shri Raghunath Prasad Singh Aged 46 years Resident of
Village Chhoti Lagma, P.O. Shivkund Distt. Munger, Bihar
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.     Union of India The Chief Engineer Border Fencing Division
       Central Public Works Department R.K. Puram, New Delhi.
2.     Executive Engineer Border Fencing Division - VI Central
       Public Works Department Barmer.
                                                                 ----Respondent


                              Connected With
                S.B. Execution First Appeal No. 3/2024

 Union Of India, Through Chief Engineer, Border Fencing
 Division, Cpwd, 4Th Floor, East Block, Ramakrishnapuram, New
 Delhi Through Mayank Kumar Gupta S/o K.l Gupta, Age 37,
 Executive Engineer. (Decree Holder)
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus
 M/s Rao Construction Co., A4, Ground Floor, Benunad Complex,
 Near Udgam School, Drive In Road, Thaltej, Ahemdabad,
 Gujarat (Judgment Debtor). At Present R/o C-21 Swarishi
 Apartment Doctor Colony, Bhundare, Kol Road, Narayanpura,
 Ahmedabad,gujrat.
                                                                 ----Respondent


                S.B. Execution First Appeal No. 4/2024

 Union Of India, Chief Engineer, Border Fencing Division, Cpwd,
 4Th Floor, East Block, Ramakrishnapuram, New Delhi Through
 Mayank Kumar Gupta S/o K.l. Gupta, Age 37, Executive
 Engineer.
                                                                   ----Appellant
                                    Versus


                     (Downloaded on 29/08/2025 at 11:13:50 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:38379]                   (2 of 4)                          [CR-301/2009]



 M/s Rao Construction Co., A4, Ground Floor, Benunad Complex,
 Near Udgam School, Drive In Road, Thaltej, Ahemdabad,
 Gujarat. At Present R/o C-21 Swarishi Apartment Doctor
 Colony, Bhundare, Kol Road, Narayanpura, Ahmedabad,gujrat.
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Nishant Bora
                                Mr. Lalit Pareek
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Yuvraj Singh



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

27/08/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the

niceties of the matter.

2. Bereft of elaborate details briefly stated the facts of the case

are that the plaintiff-Union of India filed a civil suit for

recovery of amount against the defendant who is petitioner

here. The suit was decreed. In a separate proceeding, the

petitioner-contractor company moved for arbitration

proceeding in which an award was passed in his favour. The

subject matter of the arbitral proceeding and the civil suit

arose out of the same cause of action. The construction

company-petitioner moved for execution of the arbitral

award. On the other hand the plaintiff-Union of India filed an

execution proceeding in accordance with the judgment and

decree passed by the civil court. In the meantime, a

consensus has arrived in between them and both decided to

resolve the dispute amicably through talk on table and

accordingly an amicable settlement has arrived in between

[2025:RJ-JD:38379] (3 of 4) [CR-301/2009]

them. A copy of the compromise/settlement is there on

record and the fact above is even reproduced in the order

under challenge. As per the settlement neither the plaintiff is

desirous to recover the amount from the defendant, the

construction company who is the petitioner here before this

Court, nor the petitioner wishes to pursue execution of the

arbitral award. The amount in fact has been liquidated in

between them. In the execution proceeding, an application

was moved for deciding the file in accordance with the

compromise, however, the court dismissed the execution

proceeding which grieved the parties hence the petition.

2.1. After going through the niceties of the matter this

Court feels that when both the parties do not wish to

continue the judicial proceeding and as per the agreed terms

of the settlement nothing is to be taken or given by any of

the party or to each other. This would mean that the decree

passed by the civil court is satisfied and the arbitral award

are also satisfied since no claim of the parties remained to

be executed.

3. In view of the above, the civil revision petition and execution

first appeals are disposed of.

4. The decree of the civil court and the arbitral proceeding shall

be dropped. Neither party would claim anything from each

other. Both the learned counsel are agreeable on this point.

5. The execution proceeding initiated in pursuance of the

decree passed by the civil court shall come to an end since

the decree shall be termed as satisfied. The construction

[2025:RJ-JD:38379] (4 of 4) [CR-301/2009]

company is restrained from processing from pursuing

execution of arbitral award.

6. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 3-Samvedana/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)