:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1558 OF 2005 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION LODGING NO.525 OF 2005 IN AWARD DATED 5.4.2002 Taherbhai Abudllabhai and anr. ..Applicants. Vs. Mohammed H. Abdullabhai and ors. ..Respondent. Mr. Milind Vasudeo with Mr. P.P.Patel i/by M/s. Nanu Hormasjee & Co. for the Applicants. Mr. Sean Wasoodew for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9. Mr. P.G. Lad for the Respondent Nos. 10 to 12. Mr. Subhodh Joshi i/by Nandalal Kothari & Sabir for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATED : 13/11/2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This chamber summons is taken out by the original defendant Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 for certain reliefs and for directions to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit being Suit No.2223 of 1994 as withdrawn and for discharge of court receiver without passing accounts. In the alternative the aforesaid defendants also seek rejection of the plaint and consequential order of discharge of Court Receiver without passing accounts and vacating ad interim relief passed in the above suit. There is also a prayer for declaring that the original plaintiff is guilty of disobeying the award dated 5.4.2002 and in :2: particular having disobeyed the assurance given in Clauses (K) and (I) of the supplementary consent terms under the said award contemplated or referred in the said award and to attach the property of the defendant No.1 for disobedience of the said award. The counsel appearing for the defendants brought to my notice Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of P.Anand Gajapathi Raju and ors. Vs. P.V.G. Raju (dead) and ors. reported in (2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 539. In the said case Apex Court interalia considered a question of status of civil proceeding once the matter was referred to arbitration. In the present case dispute in the suit was referred to the Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 by an order dated 9.2.1998 passed by (S.S.Nijjar, J.). After arbitration was concluded award was passed and execution application has been preferred by the original defendants 1,3,5 and 6. It appears that the plaintiff has not taken out any execution proceeding. The law on the point is that once matter is referred to arbitration, proceedings in civil action stand disposed of. It would mean that Civil Suit No.2223 of 1994 stood disposed of when the order was made by (S.S.Nijjar, J.) on 9.2.1998. In the circumstances, the prayer clause (a) and (b) as framed cannot be granted. 2. As far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, my :3: attention is drawn upon the fact that in the Award dated 5.4.2002 it is declared that the parties have share in the property as set out in the consent terms dated 24.4.1990 and the parties were given liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum for actual division and recovery of their respective shares in Khamgaon property. 3. It is brought to my notice that the execution proceedings have been amended by the aforesaid defendants seeking partition of the property by metes and bounds. This has been done on the footing that the said defendants feel this to be an appropriate proceeding in appropriate forum for actual recovery of possession of the property to execute the award dated 5.4.2002. It is further contended that in the order making the reference (S.S. Nijjar, J.) had directed that the Court Receiver to continue pending the execution of the award that may be passed. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant prayer clause (c) as the matter relating to the division of property and recovery of shares of the parties is still under consideration of this court in the execution proceeding. There will however be liberty to the defendants who have filed this chamber summons to take out fresh chamber summons for division of the Khamgaon property by metes and bounds in accordance with their shares. The present :4: chamber summons however, stands dismissed. 4. At the present moment, I am not inclined to discharge the Court Receiver. In the court, statements were made on behalf of the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 in this chamber summons and the original plaintiff (Respondent No.1 in this chamber summons) that they would have no objection for division of the property in accordance with law. The present chamber summons stands disposed off. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)