CIVIL REVISION NO.2400 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: APRIL 24, 2008 Lt.Col.P.C.Chandel (Retd.), Panchkula .....Petitioner VERSUS The Punjab State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chandigarh and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. S. Pathania, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This revision is directed against the order passed by Additional District Judge, Panchkula, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Panchkula, dismissing the objection filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The petitioner stood surety for a loan raised by M/s Heels and Toes Footwears Pvt. Ltd., Panchkula, from Punjab State Cooperative Bank. The borrower did not adhere to the terms of the payment and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator who gave his award. The Bank filed execution for executing the Arbitration award which was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge at Panchkula as the CIVIL REVISION NO.2400 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: property mortgaged was situated at Panchkula. The counsel for the petitioner raised objection at the stage of execution saying that award was not binding on him as no notice was served upon him by Arbitrator. The Court, however, noticed the peculiar facts in the present case where the petitioner had earlier challenged the award by filing a writ petition before the High Court, when his objections against the arbitrator award were dismissed. Division Bench of this Court, however, dismissed the said writ petition. When the petitioner was confronted with this fact by the Courts below, he submitted that the award has not been challenged on the grounds, which he had now raised before the Court. Noticing that the conduct of the petitioner would be bound by the principle of constructive resjudi-cata, the Court has declined to accept the objections so made by the petitioner. The primary contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is that the award was passed without granting any opportunity of hearing to him and as such, would be a nullity and can be challenged even during the execution proceedings. The counsel, however, could not dispute this fact that he had earlier filed objections against the award on the grounds that were available to him under the Arbitration Act and which had been declined. The counsel also could not rebut that he had then impugned the award by filing a writ petition, which was also dismissed. It was, thus, pointed out to the counsel that he can not now raise the challenge at the time of execution to say that the arbitration award is a nullity. The counsel could not make any meaningful plea in this regard except for stating that the arbitration award passed without hearing the petitioner would CIVIL REVISION NO.2400 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: be a nullity and thus can not be executed. The challenge of the petitioner to the award having been already decided and writ petition filed by him having been dismissed, would seriously stand against the petitioner in his effort to seek the relief at the time of execution. It is also to be noted that decree in the form of arbitration award has just been forwarded to Court at Panchkula since the property is situated and located under the jurisdiction of the Court at Panchkula. No case for interference as such is made out. The revision is accordingly dismissed. April 24 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE