IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1460 of 2008 SRI DINANATH SAH, son of Late Laxmi Sah, resident of mohalla-Chak Muazama Kachi-Sarai Road, near Kanhauli Naka, P.S. Town Thana, District-Muzaffarpur. ……………..Petitioner. Versus LALBABU SAH, son of Late Laxmi Sah, resident of Mohalla- Chak Moazam Kachi-Sarai Road, Near Kanhauli Naka, P.S.- Muzaffarpur, District-Mazaffarpur. ………………Opposite Party ----------- For the Petitioner –Mr. S.K. Majumdar, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Md. Anis Akhtar, Advocate Mr. Arif Daula Siddiqui, Advocate For the Opp. Party- Bimalesh Kumar, Advocate N.K. Mishra, Advocate ---------------------- 4. 27.10.2010 Having heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the sole opposite party, this Court is of the considered opinion that in stead of deliberating on the issue vacating of the stay passed by this Court on 8.9.2008, it would be in the interest of justice to dispose of the civil revision application itself. This Court accordingly has heard the parties on merits. The impugned order in the Civil Revision Application dated 2.8.2008 has been passed in Execution Case No. 17/5 of 2003 wherein the application filed by the petitioner dated 30.1.2008 for staying the further proceeding of the execution case was rejected. It is not in dispute that an arbitration award under the provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was made on 2 24.11.2002 in favour of the opposite party. The petitioner of this case thereafter had filed Misc. Case No. 7 of 2005 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Once the Misc. Case No. 7 of 2005 was filed, there was no question of proceeding further with the execution case filed by the petitioner being Execution Case No. 17/5 of 2003 till the disposal of the aforesaid miscellaneous case but from the impugned order dated 2.8.2008 it appears that the prayer of the petitioner to stay the further proceeding of Execution Case on the ground of pendency his Miscellaneous Case against the award sought to be executed was rejected. Such recourse in the opinion of this Court is not a sound exercise of discretion by this Court below and hence an apparent jurisdictional error. Law in this regard is well settled in the case of National Aluminium Company Limited Vs. M/S Pressteel and Fabrications Private limited and Another reported in A.I.R 2005 S.C. 1514. In that view of the matter the impugned order refusing to stay the further proceeding in the Execution case till the disposal of the miscellaneous case filed by the petitioner is apparently a jurisdictional error and this Court will have no hesitation in setting aside such impugned order, with a direction that further proceeding 3 of the execution case on 17/5 of 2003 shall remain stayed till the disposal of Misc. Case No. 7 of 2005. The whole purpose of the parties resorting to arbitration proceeding was to shorten the litigation but unfortunately, the same has spread over for a period at least last seven years. This Court would therefore direct the concerned, Court to ensure that Misc. Case No. 7 of 2005 presently pending before the Sub-Judge-I Muzaffarpur is taken up for its hearing on day to day basis and is disposed of within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If any of the parties would not co-operate in the disposal of the said Misc. Case No. 7 of 2005 the court below having recorded this aspect would proceed further. In any event the Court below must ensure that the Misc. Case No. 7 of 2005 is disposed of without any further delay and preferably within a period of four months as indicated above. With this aforementioned observations and directions this application is finally disposed of. Prakash/Anand Kr. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)