- (1.) K. S. Rakhra, J. This is a revision under Section 115 CPC against the judgment and order dated 14-10-2003 passed by the District Judge, Agra in Misc. Case No. 310 of 1999 Rajesh Dutt Sharma v. Bulaki Singh and others, whereby application No. 62-C of the appellant revisionist made under Section 151, 152 CPC has been rejected.
(2.) HEARD Shri Kshitij Shailendra, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Shri Rishi Chadha for opposite party No. 7. The opposite party No. 1, who is applicant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and is the main contesting party, has not put in appearance despite the service of notice. Perused the record. On Arbitration reference, an award has been made in favour of the revisionist declaring him entitled to get Rs. 7,86,300 and five flats, namely, G-1, G-2, G-4 and F-2 and S-3 from the objector applicant under Section 34 of the aforesaid Arbitration Act. The opposite party No. 1 by making an application under Section 34 before the District Judge, challenged the award and the said application is still pending. In the meanwhile, the opposite party No. 1, who is a builder and had entered into agreement with the revisionist started selling the flats, which had been constructed as per agreement between the parties. Since the revisionist felt that the opposite party No. 1 was selling out the flats incontravention of the award, he made application under Section 9 of the said Act, on which the District Judge passed an order on 29-5-2000, copy of which is Annexure No. 6 with the revision petition. Learned District Judge while discussing the application of the revisionist and the award which was delivered mentioned that the award confers on the revisionist right to receive the aforesaid amount and five flats mentions above. However, it appears that under some, confusion in the concluding portion of the order, the District Judge observing that only 11 flats are left to be sold out, passed an order restraining opposite party No. 1, from transferring 8 flats out of the remaining 11 flats till the disposal of the case. Since this order was not in conformity with the prayer and was therefore, vague, the revisionist made an application under Sections 151, 152 CPC for correction in the order. The District Judge has rejected the said application by the impugned order.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned Counsel for the opposite parties. I agree that the impugned order would occasion failure of justice and the District Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. Once he had taken in decision that the interest of the revisionist was to be protected during the pendency of the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration [and Conciliation (sic)] Act, 1996, then he ought to have passed consequential order to see that the protection was in fact available to the revisionist. The prayer was with regard to five flats but the order dated 29-5-2000 in its operative portion refers to 8 flats without discussing the identity thereof. The order definitely needed correction in the light of the discussion made and the conclusion drawn in the body of the order.;