IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 682 of 2009 (M/S) Uttarakhand Rural Road Development Authority, through its Superintendent Engineer, Sahastradhara Road, Dehradun and another. ……..Petitioners. Versus M/s Betal Singh Kumai, Government Contractor & Supplier, R/O Village Maldeval, District Tehri Garhwal. …….Respondent. Sri M. C. Pant, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri S. K. Jain, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. Date May 21, 2009. Hon’ble B. S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 25-4-2009 passed by the District Judge Uttarkashi, whereby the application, paper no. 14-C for stay of execution moved by the petitioner has been rejected without deciding the application paper no. 17-C wherein the jurisdiction of the court has been questioned, which is still pending for disposal. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioner has filed the objection under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short the Act) against the award dated 29-1-2008 given by the chief Engineer Level I, P.W.D. before the District Judge, Dehradun, which is also pending. Section 36 of the Act reads as under:- “ 36. Enforcement – Where the time for making an application to set aside the arbitral award under section 34 has expired, or such application having been made, it has been refused the award shall be enforced under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in the same manner as if it were a decree of the Court.” Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently contended that the petitioners are not competent to file application under Section 34 of the Act against the award, hence the application under Section 34 of the Act could not have been entertained by the court concerned. The question of maintainability of application under Section 34 of the Act can only be decided by the District Judge Dehradun before whom the application has been moved. It is settled law that if the application under Section 34 of the Act is not disposed of by the Court finally either on the point of maintainability or on the point of jurisdiction, the execution shall not proceed further. It is not disputed between the parties that application under Section 34 of the Act is pending before the District Judge Dehradun against the arbitral award dated 29-1-2008 and that the respondent has moved execution application for enforcement of the said award before the District Judge Uttarkashi registered as Execution Case No. 7 of 2008. In this view of the matter, in view of the provisions of Section 36 of the Act, the District Judge Uttarkashi shall not proceed with the execution proceeding till the disposal of application under Section 34 of the Act by the District Judge, Dehradun. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioners themselves are lingering on the matter and are not co-operating in the expeditious disposal of application under Section 34 of the Act, which is pending for disposal before learned District Judge Dehradun. Having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to direct the District Judge Dehradun to dispose of the application under Section 34 of the Act of the petitioners filed in the Arbitration Case No. 41 of 2008 pending before that Court within a time bound period. Accordingly, the District Judge Dehradun is directed to decide the application for setting aside the arbitral award, under Section 34 of the Act, filed by the petitioners which has been registered as Arbitration Case No. 41 of 2008, Uttarakhand Gramin Sarak Vikas Vs. M/s Betal Singh, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Till the decision of application under Section 34 of the Act by the District Judge, Dehradun, further proceedings in Execution Case No. 7 of 2008. M/s Betal Singh Vs. Superintending Engineer shall remain stayed. The petitioners are directed to appear before the District Judge Dehradun on 27th May, 2009 and shall filed certified copy of this order in that court. Both the parties shall co-operate in the speedy disposal of the matter. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B. S. Verma, J.) RCP