1 2025:CGHC:5956 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 111 of 2025 1. Manoj Yadav S/o Shri Kamod Ram Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o House No. 255, Near Hanuman Mandir, Byas Nagar, Village- Nandeli, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2. Sadhna Yadav W/o Shri Kamod Ram Yadav Aged About 55 Years R/o House No. 255, Near Hanuman Mandir, Byas Nagar, Village- Nandeli, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh (It Is Mentioned As Shyambai In The Impugned Award By The Sole Arbitrator) ... Petitioner(s) versus  Hdfc Bank Ltd. Having Its Office At 2nd Floor, Orbit Complex, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur- 492013, Through Power Of Attorney Mr. Laxmichand Dewangan, Aged About 33 Years, Occupation- Service, Having Office Address As Above. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 03. 02.2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 04.12.2024, passed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Raipur, District Raipur C.G., whereby an application moved under Order 21 Rule 26 of CPC for the stay of execution proceeding has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that an ex-parte award was passed against the father and husband of petitioners No. 1 and 2, respectively. He would further submit that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act, 2 1996’) is pending before the learned District Court for setting aside the ex- parte award. He would also submit that the respondent has filed an application under Section 36 of the Act, 1996 for the execution of the award. It is contended that an application for stay was moved in a pending proceeding under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 and that has been rejected by the learned trial Court. 3. Heard. 4. The petitioner has not approached the executing Court on the ground that an application for setting aside the ex-parte award is pending consideration before the learned District Court and directly moved an application before the learned District Court; therefore, it was rightly rejected. The petitioner ought to have approached the Executing Court on the ground that an application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is pending consideration before the learned District Court. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Executing Court for the stay of the execution proceeding on the ground that an application under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is pending consideration before the District Court. 5. With the aforesaid observation(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant