HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 4438 of 2010 ORDER Notices were returned un-served. The petitioner’s counsel was permitted to take out personal notice to the respondents by registered post with acknowledgement due. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the return covers showing the endorsement of the postal authorities that the respondents have unclaimed/refused the notices. In the circumstances, the notices are deemed to have been served on them. 3. No representation for the respondents. 4. Basing on the award passed by the arbitrators, dated 28-02-2005 for Rs.97,945/- with future interest @ 18% per annum, the petitioner filed E.P. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter, inter alia, contending that they had only a single transaction with the decree holder on 10-11-2003 in a sum of Rs.1,19,415/- under three bills. The petitioner has two sister concerns viz., M/s.Bairav Textiles and M/s. Sriphal Silks. But the respondents did not have any transaction with M/s.Sriphal Silks except one credit account with M/s.Bairav Textiles. It is their case that the petitioner had already collected Rs.17,000/- on 09-07-2004, Rs.18,000/- on 08-07-2004, Rs.40,000/- on 17-08-2005 and Rs.40,000/- subsequently, leaving a balance of only Rs.4,415/-. It is also their case that they have deposited Rs.6,092/- into C.C.D. Account on 13-10-2008 subsequent to filing of the E.P. 5. The respondents have produced a receipt dated 08-07-2004 for Rs.18,000/-. Another receipt, dated 09-07-2004 for Rs.17,000/- issued by M/s.Sriphal Silks and a Certificate dated 20-04-2007 for Rs.40,000/- issued by Syndicate Bank i.e. total amount of Rs.75,000/-. The lower Court taking into consideration the above receipts, directed the respondents to remit the balance amount of Rs.40,000/- to the Court together with interest thereon within one month from the date of that order. It has to be seen that the respondents had taken a specific plea that they did not have any transaction with M/s. Sriphal Silks. But, however, the documents filed by them are admittedly issued by M/s. Sriphal Silks. Moreover as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no application under Section 47 CPC was filed seeking adjustment of the alleged payments, M/s. Sriphal Silks. It also appears that the award of the arbitrators is not challenged and it has become final moreover, respondents have to prove the adjustment of the alleged payments. 6. In the above circumstances, it appears that the lower Court ought to have enquired into the matter with regard to the adjustment of the alleged payments after giving opportunities to both the parties. It appears that the impugned order is passed without considering the rival contentions and without proving the alleged adjustment payments. 7. In the above circumstances, it is just and reasonable to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the lower Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid directions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date: 10-06-2011 KVR