- (1.) Heard Sri Sirjit Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist and Sri Rajesh Kumar appearing on behalf of the opposite party. Affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of the counsels, this revision application is being heard and decided finally at the stage of admission itself Order impugned is dated 7th May, 2010 passed by the Sub-Judge-I at Seraikella in Execution Case No. 1 of 1995.
(2.) The controversy was referred to arbitration and there were 14 claims before the Arbitrator. The sole Arbitrator Sri A.K. Basu, (Retired Engineer in-Chief), Irrigation Department, gave his Award on all 14 claims on 18th June, 1992 The compensation claim was made the Rule of the Court vide judgment and order dated 20.8.1993 in Misc. Case No. 10 of 1992 arising out of Title Suit No. 13 of 1992. This judgment was challenged by the State in Misc. Appeal No. 601 of 1993(R), which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 23.5.1997. This order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide S.L.P.(Civil) No. 16977 of 1997, which was dismissed on 19th September, 1997. The original decree of the Title Suit No. 13 of 1992 is placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revisionist to demonstrate that value of the suit as mentioned in the decree is Rs. 14,38,260/-and, therefore the execution of the decree cannot go behind the decree and exceed the said valuationThus order impugned in the instant revision dated 7th May, 2010 in Execution Case No. 1 of 1995 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Seraikella is beyond the jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
(3.) Perusal of the "Award" at serial No. 14.4 discloses that: "Award" 14.4-the work of soft rock with blasting is admitted but regarding the quantity this has to be arrived at by the Chief Engineer of the Project as required in the schedule of rate. The Extra item can be paid as per the sanctioned schedule of rate of that time.;