THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY DATED: 15-03-2011 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 934 OF 2011 Between: Dr. P. Sreemannarayana and two others ..... PETITIONERS AND Dr. R. Krishna .....RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 934 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per Sri Goda Raghuram, J) Pursuant to and for execution of the award of the Arbitrator dated 08-04-2010 between the parties herein, the respondent – claimant filed E.P No. 238 of 2010 before the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam for execution of the award of the Arbitrator which is treated as a decree of the civil Court under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’). A preliminary objection to the maintainability of the execution petition was lodged by the revision petitioners – judgment debtors contending inter alia that the Sole Arbitrator in the award did not pass any direction to the respondents to vacate the schedule premises and, that therefore, the execution petitioner has no right to file execution petition for eviction on the basis of the award. By the order dated 07-02-2011, the Court below recorded that under Section 36 of the Act, the award is enforceable under the Code of Civil Procedure as it is a decree of the civil Court. The Court did not pronounce any order on the maintainability of the award on the ground that there was no direction that the revision petitioners should vacate the schedule premises. Objection lodged by the petitioners to the maintainability of the E.P has not been answered is a grievance herein. The question whether an arbitral award contains a direction which obligates the revision petitioners to vacate the schedule premises is an aspect that can be gone into at the hearing of the execution petition and need not be decided as a preliminary issue, particularly since arbitral proceedings are required to be expeditious and not as dilatory as regular process of a suit in execution of its judgment and decree. For the aforesaid reasons while preserving liberty to the petitioners to urge that the arbitral award does not obligate them to vacate the schedule premises in the execution proceedings, this revision is dismissed. GODA RAGHURAM, J G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 15-03-2011 ks Note: Furnish CC as soon as possible B/O ks