S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) THIS case has a long checkered history. The dispute between the parties led to appointment of a sole arbitrator by this Court. The challenge to the award by the petitioner -M/s. Vardan Builders failed and the award dated 31.10.2004 attained finality after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11368 of 2007 on 23.07.2007. Thereafter, at the execution stage the parties approached this Court against orders passed in Execution Case No. 3(A) of 2005. The award dated 31.10.2004 has different components relating to car parking, boundary wall, possession of total constructed area etc. The dispute which has led to filing of the present writ petition relates to completion of boundary wall measuring 31.5.12 meter. The award on the said issue reads as under: "(b) The respondent -Builder should also complete the incomplete portion of the boundary wall measuring 31.5.12 meter and should make provision for clearing the drain water from the ground chamber towards the main municipal drain in the front side of the building within 15 days, failing which he will be liable to pay Rs. 30,000/ - per month for first six months w.e.f. 16th day (from today) and Rs. 50,000/ - per month thereafter, till the above construction is complete".
(2.) THE decree -holder filed an application on 02.08.2007 claiming payment of Rs. 15,10,000/ - on account of non -completion of boundary wall and drain. In the said application, the decree -holder after adjustment of security amount, interest, cost of deviation etc. had claimed payment of Rs. 18,22,400/ - and the said amount was paid by the judgment -debtor by way of Bank Draft and Managers Cheque. The decree -holder again filed an application on 15.04.2014 claiming Rs. 21,46,667/ - on account of delayed completion of boundary wall and the drain. The said application has been allowed vide order dated 27.01.2015 in Execution Case No. 3(A) of 2005, against which the present writ petition has been filed. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to application dated 07.03.2009 filed by the decree -holder in the Execution Case No. 3(A) of 2005 submits that, though the decree -holder himself admits that penalty for delayed construction of boundary wall and drain till 02.08.2007 has been paid, vide impugned order dated 27.01.2015 the executing court has erroneously ordered payment for the said period also. It is contended that the construction of the boundary wall after 17.08.2007 was beyond the control of the judgment -debtor and therefore, the petitioner is not liable to make payment for delayed completion of the boundary wall. It is contended that in view of order dated 17.08.2007 in UC Case No. 218 of 2007 passed by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority(RRDA) staying further construction in Surbhi Apartments, the petitioner could not have carried further construction of the boundary wall and therefore, it is not liable to pay penalty for delayed construction of the boundary wall and the drain.
(3.) REFERRING to application dated 15.04.2014, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the claim of the petitioner is confined to the calculation given in paragraph No. 4 of the said application.;