Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) Doubting the correctness of the impugned order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Durgapur in Misc. Case No. 10 of 2012, the present petitioner/decree holder has come before this forum with a prayer to set aside the same. The said Misc. Case No. 10 of 2012 arose out of Money Execution Case No. 01 of 2006.
(2.) According to the petitioner, learned Court below could not consider entire factual aspects in its proper perspectives and had it been so in that case he would have got a favourable order.
(3.) Now factual aspect is required to be revisited. The present decree holder had filed an application under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1940 in terms of the agreement executed between that petitioner and the respondent and the said arbitration proceeding was registered as Misc. Case No. 32 of 1986. After a contested hearing the arbitrator has passed the order on 24.05.1988 and filed the said award before the learned Court below on 15.09.1989. The respondent challenges the order by putting their objection. Time to time the respondent had filed several applications for setting aside the award. Ultimately, on 16.03.1991 learned Court below made the award Rule of Court by dismissing the objection of the respondent and directed them to comply with the award dated 24.05.1988. On 13.04.1991 the respondent filed an application before the learned Court below for stay of the award on the ground that copy of the said application have never served upon the petitioner and so challenged the enforceability of the award so passed on 24.05.1988. After the award has been made Rule of Court on 16.03.1991 the respondent D.V.C. filed another application on 13.04.1991 praying for stay of the suit on the ground stated therein. That was pending for adjudication. Then the petitioner had to file an application for drawing up of the decree and the decree was drawn up on 21.02.2003. Thereafter he had filed the execution case on 30.06.2006. According to the petitioner, since the decree was drawn up on 21.01.2003 so the execution petition filed by him on 30.06.2006 is well within the period of limitation. Without adhering to the said facts and the chequered history of the proceeding, learned Executing Court has dismissed his application for execution holding that it is not maintainable. His specific averment is such that before the decree is drawn up period of limitation should not be counted. He further added that period of 12 years has to be reckoned from the date of drawing up of the decree.;