- (1.) By filing this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, decree holder (DH) has assailed order dated 14.10.2010 passed by Executing Court i.e. learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, thereby dismissing the execution petition filed by the DH-petitioner.
(2.) Dispute between the parties was referred to Arbitrator, who passed award at Chennai. In view of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Arbitration award is executable as decree of the Court. Petitioner-decree holder filed execution petition for execution of the award in the Court at Chennai (where the award was passed), but since property of respondents/judgment debtors (JDs) is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Court at Ambala, DH got the decree (award) transferred for execution to the Court at Ambala and accordingly the executing Court at Ambala was seized of the execution proceedings. JDs raised objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Ambala to execute the decree. Learned Executing Court vide impugned order dated 14.10.2010 has uphled the objection of the JDs relying on judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Versus P. Vengal Rao and another, 2009 AIR(AP) 196 and dismissed the execution petition. Feeling aggrieved, DH has filed this revision petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the petitioner contended that even according to judgment in the case of M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. , the petitioner had to file the execution petition at Chennai and to get the decree transferred to Court at Ambala for execution and since it was so done, the Court at Ambala has jurisdiction to execute the decree. Relying on unreported judgment dated 13.03.2009 of Delhi High Court in EA No.105 of 2009 titled Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd. Versus Numaligarh Refinery Ltd., it was contended that execution petition could even be filed straightaway in the Court at Ambala.;