1 WP No.3175/11 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3175 of 2011 Ratnakar Lalchand Manjarekar & ors. ... Petitioners versus Mrs.Vidya Gajanan Koli ... Respondent ... Mr.A.B.Ketkar i/b Kapil Shetye for the petitioners Mr.K.K. Malpathak for the respondent. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATED : 23rd June 2011 P.C. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Malpathak waives service for the respondent. By consent, heard forthwith. 2. By this petition, petitioners challenges the order dated 3 September 2010 passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Thane attaching the property of the petitioners in execution proceedings. 3. Disputes between the petitioners and respondent were referred to an arbitrator. On 16 August 2003, the arbitrator pronounced an award directing the Mr.Lalchand Manjarekar to pay 2 WP No.3175/11 to the respondent a sum of Rs.13,36,176/- with interest and legal expenses and the costs of arbitration. Petitioners are the heirs of Lalchand who has since died. The respondent filed an execution petition bearing Special Darkhast no.114 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Thane for execution of the award. In the said execution proceedings, the executing court passed an order of attachment of the property of the petitioners. That order is impugned in this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division was incompetent to execute the award and the order of attachment was therefore without jurisdiction. In support, he referred to and relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in The Akola Janata Commercial Co-operative Bank Vs. Raju Natthuji Badhe 2011(Vol.3) All M.R 200. In that case, the Division Bench has held that an award passed by an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 must be treated as a decree passed by the District Judge and therefore, it may be executed either by District Judge himself or by any court to which it may be sent by said District Judge for execution. The Division Bench has held that the decree holder must apply for execution of an award only to the Court of District Judge who may either execute the award as a decree himself or send it for execution to another court including a sub-ordinate court of competent jurisdiction. In the present case, execution proceedings were not filed in the court of District Judge but were filed in the court of Civil Judge, Sr. Division directly. In view of the decision of the Division Bench, the execution proceedings could not have been filed 3 WP No.3175/11 directly in the court of Civil Judge, Sr.Division but they had to be filed in the court of District Judge. The Civil Judge, Sr.Division had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the execution proceedings filed directly before it. In the circumstances, order of attachment passed by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division is without jurisdiction. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent then submitted that the execution petition may be returned to the petitioner for representation to the District Court. Since the present writ petition is against an order of attachment, in the petition such an order cannot be passed. It would be open to the respondent to make an appropriate application before the executing court in that regard. 6. The writ petition is allowed and impugned order is set aside as being without jurisdiction. Rule made absolute. (D.G.KARNIK, J)