-t
A
BHOLANATII
v.
·-If-
MONIKA (D) THROUGH LRS. ANDANR.
SEPTEMBER 24,_ 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.J
Arbitration:
· Cooperative Society-Allotment of plots by-Dispute-Matter
~-
c referred to arbitration-Arbitrator directing allotment of plot No. 6
to petitioner-By mistake, sale deed of plot No. 66 executed in favour
of petitioner-In another dispute, plot No. 66 allotted by arbitrator
· to respondent-Execution application by respondent for execution of
sale deed in respect of plot No. 66 in her favour-Petitioner challenging
D maintainability of execution application filed by respondent on plea
oflis pendens-Held: Plot No. 6 only was directed to be allotted to
petitioner and sale deed in respect of plot No. 66 was executed by
)..
mistake-Petitioner cannot take advantage thereof-Remedy for
petitioner would be to take appropriate proceedings to give effect to
E award passed by arbitrator in his favour-Execution of award-
Doctrine oflis pe~dens.
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4538 of
2007.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.04.2007 of the High Court
of Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 487 of 1987.
Prashant Kumar and Joseph Pookkatt (for Mis. AP & J Chambers)
for the Appellant.
Brij Bhushan for the Respondents.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
ORDER
>--
Leave granted.
The dispute between the parties relates to plot No. 66, admeasuring
H
292
BHOLA NATH v. MONIKA
293
_ >·
45 ft. x 80 ft. total area 3600 sq.ft situated at Jawahar Nagar Extension A
Colony, Mauja Bhadeni Pargana Dehat, City Varanasi. As a dispute arose
between petitioner and a cooperative society, the same was referred to
arbitration. In the year 1981 an award was passed in favour of the
petitioner. The arbitrator directed allotment of plot No. 6 in his favour.
However, treating the said plot to be 66 (instead of plot No. 6) a sale B
deed was executed by the cooperative society in favour petitioner for plot
No. 66. Another dispute arose between the respondent and the
_ ~
cooperative society in relation to award of a plot in her favour. In the
award made in favour of the respondent, it was directed that any of the
3 plots namely, plot Nos. 66, 91 or 15 may be allotted in her favour. As C
the plot Nos. 91 and 15 were not available having been allotted to other
members of the cooperative society, the respondent filed an execution
application for allotment of the said plot No. 66 and execution of sale
deed in her favour. In relation thereto, an objection filed by the petitioner
herein has been dismissed. The revision petition filed thereagainst has also D
been dismissed.
The sole question which arose for consideration before the executing
authority was as to whether in view of the fact that a deed of sale has
been executed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said plot No.
66, the execution petition filed at the instance of the respondent was · E
maintainable.
Petitioner sought to rely upon the docrtine of lis pendens to contend
that the said execution application was not maintainable. Before us copies
of the original awards have been produced for the perusal. It appears F
that plot No. 6 was only directed to be allotted in favour of the petitioner.
If in execution of the said award a sale deed in respect of plot No. 66
has been executed, the same was evidently done by mistake and, thus,
the petitioner cannot take any advantage thereof The remedy of the
petitioner would, therefore, be to initiate an appropriate proceeding for G
giving effect to the award passed by the Arbitrator in his favour. The appeal
is devoid of any merit and is, therefore, dismissed.
No costs.
RP.
Appeal dismissed. H
Lex