IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.410 of 2025 Decided on: 14.08.2025 ____________________________________________________ Yog Raj ……….. petitioner Versus Sriram Transport Finance Co. Limited and another ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate. For the respondents : Nemo. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the Executing Court, whereby objections filed by the present petitioner to the execution preferred by the present respondents has been dismissed. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order and the documents appended alongwith the present petition. 3. The arbitral award in the case at hand is dated 20.3.2013. The same is appended alongwith the present petition as Annexure P-1. The dispute in the case at hand inter se the parties arose with respect to a loan-agreement dated 28.1.2009. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The same contained an arbitration clause. As per the loan agreement, a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- was financed by the respondents for purchase of a vehicle by the present petitioner. The proforma respondent in the case at hand had stood guarantee. Post appointment of the arbitrator, the present petitioner and proforma respondent were duly served, however, they did not appear before the arbitrator. Based on the evidence produced before the arbitrator, the claim filed by present respondent No.1 was allowed. 4. Admittedly in the case at hand, no Section 34 petition laying a challenge to the arbitral award dated 20.3.2013 was filed by the present petitioner. In terms of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the arbitral award dated 20.3.2013 was sought to be got executed by the present respondent No.1. In the execution, the present petitioner was served. Objections on behalf of the present petitioner were filed. In the objections so filed, preliminary objections with respect to locus standi, cause of action, maintainability, concealment of fact, the jurisdiction of the arbitrator were raised, on merits, the contents of the execution petition was denied. The Executing Court dismissed the objections on account of the fact that the arbitral award dated 20.3.2013 had the force of a decree in view of Section 36 of the Arbitral and Conciliation Act 1996 and on the well settled principle of law that an Executing Court can never go behind the decree. 3 5. No fault can be found with the reasons stating by the Executing Court while dismissing the objections in the case at hand. The arbitration award dated 20.3.2013 which is sought to be executed in terms of Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 is to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court. Other than the aforesaid, it is a well accepted principle of law that the executing Court can never go behind the decree unless the Court’s order is itself without jurisdiction. However, the executing Court can entertain and allow an objection qua the executability of a decree, if it is found that the same is void ab initio and a nullity, apart from the ground that the decree is not capable of execution under law either because the same was passed in ignorance of such a provision of law or the law was promulgated making a decree inexecutable after its passing. Such is not the case herein. 6. Besides the aforesaid, the inordinate delay, which is universally caused throughout India in the execution of a decree, has been a cause of concern. The execution proceedings which are supposed to be a handmaid of justice and subserve the cause of justice are, in effect, becoming tools which are being easily misused to obstruct justice. 7. Moreover, this Court has a restricted and limited jurisdiction to interfere under the correctional jurisdiction vested in 4 it in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, except to set right a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse or violation of fundamental principle of law or justice, miscarriage of justice, un- reasonable conclusion and perversity. On the other hand in the supervisory jurisdiction reviewing or re-weighing evidence, substituting conclusions, correcting every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported is not permissible. (See Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Limited and another, (2003) 3 SCC 524 and Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, (2022) 4 SCC 181). 8. In the case at hand, for the reasons stated herein above, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out in the present petition for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of above terms, I see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court, therefore, the same is dismissed accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge August 14, 2025 tarun