CR-2563-2020 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Jai Jawan Security Pvt. Ltd. M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present : Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate Mr. Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Neha Sonawane, Advocate Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate, Mr. Tejasvi Sheokand, Advocate, for the respondent. LAPITA BANERJI Challenge in the present civil re January 21, 2020 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad. 2. Learned counsel appearing on beha award holder submits that provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the 1963 Act’) before passing of the impugned order. Therefore, vide the learned ADJ illegally rejected the execution petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. 2020 (O&M) Sr. No. 206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Jai Jawan Security Pvt. Ltd. Versus Grid Corporation of India Ltd. The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded Whether only operative part of the judgment pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate Mr. Namish Sodhi, Advocate Mr. Bharat Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Neha Sonawane, Advocate Mr. Arjun Sheoran, Advocate, Mr. Tejasvi Sheokand, Advocate, for the respondent. *** LAPITA BANERJI, J. Challenge in the present civil re January 21, 2020 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad. Learned counsel appearing on beha award holder submits that provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, (for short, ‘the 1963 Act’) has not been taken into consideration before passing of the impugned order. Therefore, vide the learned ADJ illegally rejected the execution petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2563-2020 (O&M) …Petitioner …Respondent The date when the judgment is reserved 13.07.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 20.07.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded 21.07.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment pronounced or whether the full judgment Full The delay, if any of the pronouncement of Not applicable HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Mr. Keshav Pratap Singh, Advocate Mr. Tejasvi Sheokand, Advocate, Challenge in the present civil revision is to an order dated January 21, 2020 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-decree/ award holder submits that provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, not been taken into consideration before passing of the impugned order. Therefore, vide the impugned order, the learned ADJ illegally rejected the execution petition filed by the VANDANA 2026.07.21 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2563-2020 (O&M) 3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: i) A 2000 before the learned sole arbitrator. Relying on the compromise an award was passed on December 12, 2000. compromise The same was done by the respondent iii) Even though t respondent the second phase iv) The suit for recovery of the was filed before the Courts in Delhi on February 14, 2007. By order dated October 12 Central Delhi had allowed the respon VII Rule 10 and returned the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. It the Courts in Delhi stood between the parties to the Courts in Faridabad only. v) Thereafter, the suit for recovery was filed before the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) March 31, 2018 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act’), the award was to be executed as a decree of therefore, petitioner was 2020 (O&M) The facts of the case in brief are as follows: A compromise was effected between the parties on 2000 before the learned sole arbitrator. Relying on the compromise an award was passed on December 12, 2000. compromise, a sum of Rs.65,498.52 was to be paid in the first phase. The same was done by the respondent-judgment debtor. Even though the payments in the first p respondent-judgment debtor, the payment the second phase, were not made. The suit for recovery of the amount in the was filed before the Courts in Delhi on February 14, 2007. By order dated October 12, 2012, the Court of Additional District Judge, Central Delhi had allowed the respondents’ Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure returned the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. It the Courts in Delhi stood specifically excluded by agreement between the parties as the agreement confer to the Courts in Faridabad only. Thereafter, the suit for recovery was filed before the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Faridabad on December 20, 2012. Vide order dated March 31, 2018, the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) held 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the award was to be executed as a decree of therefore, the suit for recovery did not lie. It held that the plaintiff petitioner was under a bona fide wrong impression and that is why The facts of the case in brief are as follows:- compromise was effected between the parties on October 16, 2000 before the learned sole arbitrator. Relying on the compromise an award was passed on December 12, 2000. As per the said 498.52 was to be paid in the first phase. judgment debtor. he payments in the first phase were made by the the payments which were to be paid in amount in the compromise award was filed before the Courts in Delhi on February 14, 2007. By order , 2012, the Court of Additional District Judge, dents’ application under Order ode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) returned the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. It held that specifically excluded by agreement greement conferred exclusive jurisdiction Thereafter, the suit for recovery was filed before the Civil on December 20, 2012. Vide order dated the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) held that under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the 1996 the award was to be executed as a decree of the Court and the suit for recovery did not lie. It held that the plaintiff- wrong impression and that is why VANDANA 2026.07.21 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2563-2020 (O&M) the said suit execution petition pursuant to the award dated December 21, 2000. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that after the Court could not there was more than 05 years and 6 months delay in filing the execution petition, without considering remedy under a 1963 Act. 5. He also submits that t two dates i.e. the date of the award passed on of the filing of the the other relevant dates a separate legal remedy under a 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submits that there was no pursuing other legal remedies. She submits the Hon’ble Supreme Court Appeal No.7540 of 200 Bhuyan and others the decree to contain the particulars of the of relief granted unambiguously. is clear and precise 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 2020 (O&M) the said suit for recovery had been instituted instead of filing of an execution petition pursuant to the award dated December 21, 2000. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that after the said finding vide the impugned order could not have dismissed the execution application by holding that more than 05 years and 6 months delay in filing the execution without considering that the petitioner w remedy under a bona fide mistake and the provisions of Section 14 of He also submits that the learned Executing Court considered two dates i.e. the date of the award passed on iling of the execution petition i.e. April 23, 2018 and failed to take the other relevant dates into consideration when the plaintiff was pursuing a separate legal remedy under a bona fide mistake. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of submits that there was no bona fide pursuing other legal remedies. She submits by the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated November 20, 2002 Appeal No.7540 of 2002 ‘Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan and others’ reported in (2003) 1 SCC 197 the decree to contain the particulars of the claim of relief granted unambiguously. Unless the operative part of the is clear and precise, a decree of Court cannot be executed. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. had been instituted instead of filing of an execution petition pursuant to the award dated December 21, 2000. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits impugned order, the learned Executing have dismissed the execution application by holding that more than 05 years and 6 months delay in filing the execution that the petitioner was pursuing a wrong legal the provisions of Section 14 of the he learned Executing Court considered two dates i.e. the date of the award passed on December 21, 2000 and date execution petition i.e. April 23, 2018 and failed to take when the plaintiff was pursuing mistake. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the judgment debtor- bona fide mistake by the plaintiff in by relying on the judgment of dated November 20, 2002 passed in Civil m Bhuyan Vs. Hari Prasad 1 SCC 197, that it is mandatory for claim and specify the particulars Unless the operative part of the judgment cannot be executed. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and VANDANA 2026.07.21 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2563-2020 (O&M) 8. To the mind of this Court, u an arbitral award is final and binding between the parties. Under Section 36 of the 1996 Act when the time to make an application for setting aside of an arbitral enforceable as a decree of Court Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( 9. Given the facts of this case bona fide mistake February 14, 2 decree of Court. The award dated December 21, 2000 consent award against which no application under Section 34 was have been filed by the respondent 10. Due to the lack of jurisdiction of the C in the said suit of the CPC but the fa Court was not noted in the order dated October 12, 2012. 11. Thereafter December 20, 2012 by the petitioner decreed as under the executed as a decree of Court Divn.) vide order dated March 31, 2018 held that the bona fide impression that a suit for adopted for recovery of its money and had wrongly instituted the same instead of filing of an 12. Upon the suit being dismissed in March 2018, petitioner went on to file the execution petition on April 24, 2018. The 2020 (O&M) To the mind of this Court, under Section award is final and binding between the parties. Under Section 36 of the 1996 Act when the time to make an application for setting aside rbitral award under Section 34 expires as a decree of Court in accordance wi Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Given the facts of this case it clearly transpire mistake, the first suit for recovery was instituted in Delhi on February 14, 2007 when the award should simply ourt. The award dated December 21, 2000 consent award against which no application under Section 34 was filed by the respondent-judgment debtor. Due to the lack of jurisdiction of the C in the said suit was returned to the plaintiff pursuant to O but the factum of the award being executab Court was not noted in the order dated October 12, 2012. Thereafter, a second suit for recovery was instituted on December 20, 2012 by the petitioner-plaintiff. The said suit could not be decreed as under the Section 36 of the 1996 Act executed as a decree of Court. Therefore, the learned Civil Judg Divn.) vide order dated March 31, 2018 held that the impression that a suit for recovery adopted for recovery of its money and had wrongly instituted the same instead of filing of an execution petition pursuant to the arbitral Upon the suit being dismissed in March 2018, petitioner went on to file the execution petition on April 24, 2018. The nder Section 35 of the 1996 Act, award is final and binding between the parties. Under Section 36 of the 1996 Act when the time to make an application for setting aside award under Section 34 expires, the said award becomes in accordance with the provisions of the clearly transpires that under a suit for recovery was instituted in Delhi on 007 when the award should simply have been executed as a ourt. The award dated December 21, 2000 by nature was a consent award against which no application under Section 34 was or could judgment debtor. Due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Courts in Delhi, the plaint the plaintiff pursuant to Order VII Rule 10 ctum of the award being executable as a decree of the Court was not noted in the order dated October 12, 2012. econd suit for recovery was instituted on plaintiff. The said suit could not be 1996 Act, the award itself was to be Therefore, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) vide order dated March 31, 2018 held that the plaintiff was under a recovery was the legal recourse to be adopted for recovery of its money and had wrongly instituted the same tion pursuant to the arbitral award. Upon the suit being dismissed in March 2018, the plaintiff- petitioner went on to file the execution petition on April 24, 2018. The VANDANA 2026.07.21 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2563-2020 (O&M) petitioner has been seeking dated December 21, 2000 reason to delay the execution of such unless it was petitioner had been misguided simpliciter filing of an execution application was his statutory remedy. Even while allowing the application under O ADJ, Central Delhi not to have been filed by the petitioner. 13. In the circumstances, the 12.10.2012 and computation of the period of petition before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 14. In 2020 is set aside the execution 15. With the directions aforesai 2020 is disposed 16. Connected applications if any, shall also stand disposed of. July 20, 2026 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Whether reportable : 2020 (O&M) ner has been seeking to recover a part dated December 21, 2000. The petitioner logically would not have any to delay the execution of such award being at the receiving end, it was operating under a bona fide had been misguided into filing of simpliciter filing of an execution application was his statutory remedy. Even while allowing the application under O Central Delhi did not come to a finding that a suit for recovery have been filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, the period 12.10.2012 and from 20.12.2012 to 30.03.2018 computation of the period of limitation of 12 years for before the Court of competent jurisdiction. In light of the aforesaid discussion is set aside and the learned Executing Court is directed to consider execution petition on merits. With the directions aforesaid, Civil Revision being disposed of. Connected applications if any, shall also stand disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE 6 Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No part of the compromise award . The petitioner logically would not have any award being at the receiving end, mistake. It is clear that the of a suit for recovery when simpliciter filing of an execution application was his statutory remedy. Even while allowing the application under Order VII Rule 10, the learned did not come to a finding that a suit for recovery ought periods from 14.02.2007 to 20.12.2012 to 30.03.2018 will be excluded from the limitation of 12 years for filing the execution before the Court of competent jurisdiction. discussion, the order dated January 21, and the learned Executing Court is directed to consider d, Civil Revision being CR-2563- Connected applications if any, shall also stand disposed of. (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2026.07.21 10:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document