- (1.) I have heard Shri R.N. Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the respondent of the writ petition, who has applied for review of the order dated 30.6.2009. For ready reference, the order dated 30.6.2009 is quoted below: "This writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.4.2007 passed in Execution Case No.01 of 2004 by learned Court of Munsif, Giridih and be further pleased to stay the further proceeding in Execution Case No. 01 of 2004 in the Court of Munsif, Giridih till the pendency of this writ application. It will be in the interest of both sides and even as argued by the learned counsel for both sides to give liberty to the petitioner to file its objection taking all such grounds with regard to computability of the suit and the learned court below will certainly put the petitioner to notice before passing an award in accordance with law. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. L.C.R. Called for shall be returned forthwith."
(2.) The main objection by the respondent to the said judgment is to the use of the word "award" in the second paragraph of the judgment. It is obvious that the word has been used by oversight. The trial Court or even the executing Court does not pass any award. Award is passed by an arbitrator. After the award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, it had to be made Rule of Court to amount to a decree, but in Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the award itself is a decree and can be put into execution straightaway. Therefore, the use of the word "award" in the second paragraph of the judgment is inadvertent and it actually means before passing the final order of execution. Subject to the above clarification, this review petition is disposed of.;