IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 329 of 2004. Date of decision: 06.12.2010. Himachal Motor & General Finance Co. Ltd .…Petitioner. Versus Ravinder Kumar & Others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Sunit Goel, Advocate. For the respondents: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) This petition is totally misconceived. The petitioner had filed an execution petition for execution of an award. In the said execution petition he had also filed an application under Section 29 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 and Section 34 CPC that he is entitled to interest after the passing of the award by the Arbitrator. The main execution petition was dismissed as partly satisfied on 31.3.2004. The order reads as follows:- “DH received Rs. 50,000/- as part payment of the decretal amount. Consequently DH agreed to withdraw the present execution being partly satisfied. He further prayed that original decree 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. sheet alongwith documents filed by him be returned to him so that he could file fresh execution in case J.D. would not make the payment of the remaining decretal amount. Statement of M.D. of DH recorded to this effect separately. Consequently the present execution is dismissed as withdrawn being partly satisfied in view of the statement of M.D. of the DH. Consequent upon the request of the DH let original decree sheet alongwith documents filed by him, be returned to the DH after obtaining the photo copies of the same. After needful, this file be consigned to the Record Room.” 2. On the said date the application under Section 29 filed by the petitioner was dismissed having become infructuous and the order passed thereupon reads as follows:- “Since the main execution has been dismissed as withdrawn, therefore, the present application becomes infructuous and the same is also dismissed being infructuous. After needful, it be tagged.” 3. By means of this petition the latter order passed on the application is under challenge. An application lies only in a main petition and no application can lie outside the petition. Once the main petition is dismissed as withdrawn any application pending in the main petition obviously became infructuous and had to be dismissed as such. What is the effect of this dismissal is not something which this court has to decide. Whether the petitioner can rake up the issue with regard to awarding of interest under Section 29 or 34 in fresh execution proceedings is a matter which the executing court in fresh execution petition will have to decide. In view of the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge December, 6, 2010 (guleria)