C.R No.4987 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No.4987 of 2011 Date of Decision: 28.11.2011 M/s Rajinder & Company ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Veneet Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the respondents. JASWANT SINGH, J By way of filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner-decree holder has assailed the impugned order dated 31.3.2010 (P.2) passed by the learned Executing Court vide which their application for replacement of surety has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that in an arbitration proceedings between the parties, the sole Arbitrator gave an award dated 28.1.2008 under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”). Ultimately, the matter came to this Court in an FAO No.2717 of 2009 by the respondents, which stands admitted and pending adjudication before this Court and vide order dated 27.7.2009, C.R No.4987 of 2011 #2# this Court ordered to release the decretal amount of Rs.1,86,00,000/- in terms of award dated 28.1.2008 in favour of the petitioner subject to furnishing of surety of the equivalent amount. In compliance of the order of this Court, the surety bond of agricultural land owned by one Navdeep Singh son of Tarsem Sharda was furnished on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Executing Court and on the basis thereof, the decretal amount of Rs.1,86,00,000/- was released in favour of the petitioner. But now, said surety has lost faith in the petitioner and wishes to revoke the same. In these circumstances, an application was made by the petitioner to replace his surety, which has been dismissed by the learned Executing Court, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the surety- Navdeep Sharda has lost faith in the petitioner-decree holder and wants to withdraw his surety bond and the petitioner is ready to furnish fresh surety bond of equal amount, as such there was no occasion for the learned Executing Court to reject the prayer of the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this Court finds merit in the present petition and the same deserves to be allowed. It is not in dispute that the said award was challenged under Section 34 of the Act but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment dated 16.4.2009. C.R No.4987 of 2011 #3# Ultimately, the matter came to this Court in an FAO No.2717 of 2009 by the respondents, which stands admitted and pending adjudication before this Court and vide order dated 27.7.2009, this Court ordered to release the decretal amount of Rs.1,86,00,000/- in terms of award dated 28.1.2008 in favour of the petitioner subject to furnishing of surety to the equivalent amount in compliance of which, Surety was submitted and the amount was released. Now, the petitioner-decree holder wishes to replace the surety bond given by aforesaid Navdeep Sharda by way of fresh surety bond of Smt Kavita Gupta wife of Rajinder Kumar, R/o H.No.1051, Sector 2, Panchkula of equivalent amount. It is not in dispute that said Navdeep Sharda has also moved an application for revocation of surety and in these circumstances, if the petitioners are ready and willing to furnish a fresh surety bond upto the satisfaction of the learned Executing Court, then in the interest of justice, there will be no harm to replace the surety. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, present petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall be permitted to substitute the old surety subject to the full and total satisfaction of the learned Executing Court. November 28, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE