Judgment : G. Rajasuria, J. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of A.No.1568 of 2009 would run thus: (i) This appeal is directed as against the order dated 3.3.2010 passed in E.P.No.202 of 2009. The Award dated 17.1.2002 was passed by the arbitrators concerned and it was rectified vide order dated 7.8.2003. The operative portion of those awards are worthy of being re-produced hereunder for clarity sake: Operative portion of the award dated 17.1.2002: "Following the majority opinion an award is passed in favour of the claimant that a sum of Rs.11,64,168.00 has to be paid by the respondent to the claimant as on 20.7.1997. The claimant is also entitled to recover future interest on the sum of Rs.11,64,168.00 @ 15% per annum till date of payment or recovery according to law whichever happens earlier and each party has to suffer its own cost. In view of unanimous finding that no valid mortgage by deposit of title deeds has been created by respondents 2 to 4, the claimant is directed to return the original title deeds within 90 days from this date." Operative portion of the rectified award dated 07.08.2003: "Therefore the final award dated 17.1.2002 stands corrected as follows: Following the majority opinion award is passed in favour of the claimant that a sum of Rs.11,64,168/- has to be paid by the 1st respondent to the claimant as on 20.7.1997. The claimant is also entitled to recover future interest on the sum of Rs.11,64,168/- at 15% per annum till date of payment or recovery according to law whichever happens earlier and each party has to suffer its own cost. In view of unanimous finding that no valid mortgage by deposit of title deeds has been created by respondents 2 to 4, the claimant is directed to return the original title deeds within 90 days from this date." (ii) Indubitably and indisputably, unarguably and unassailably, the respondents herein, who are the petitioners in E.P.No.202 of 2009 did not pay the award amount as per the award, in favour of the applicant herein, who is the respondent therein. Similarly, the applicant herein also did not return the documents, as per the award, to the respondents herein. Since there was non-compliance on the part of both the parties, both of them filed E.Ps. Similarly, the applicant herein also did not return the documents, as per the award, to the respondents herein. Since there was non-compliance on the part of both the parties, both of them filed E.Ps. (iii) E.P.No.259 of 2007 was filed by the applicant herein for enforcement of the award for the purpose of recovering the dues. Whereas, E.P.No.202 of 2009 was filed by the respondents herein for obtaining the documents from the applicant herein. The learned Master passed the order on 03.03.2010 in E.P.No.202 of 2009, the operative portion of it would run thus: "(3) Accordingly, the claimant/respondent/ M.M.T.C.Ltd shall return the title deeds in terms of the award to the petitioners without any further delay. Call the E.P.on 24.3.2010 for reporting compliance. (4) As for E.P.No.259 of 2007 is concerned, the claimant/M.M.T.C.Ltd.is at liberty to execute the other term of the award. Thats the applicants herein have to pay Rs.11,64,168/- to the claimant. For this amount with subsequent interest execution can proceed in E.P.No.259 of 2007." 2. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the above said order of the Master, the respondent in the E.P.No.202/2009 filed this appeal on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus: (i) This Court in E.P.No.259 of 2007 attached the B scheduled property belonging to the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein. (ii) Once attachment of the property has been effected by the Court consequent upon the default on the part of the respondents herein in not complying with the award, and driving the applicant herein to file E.P.No.259 of 2007 for recovering the dues, the respondents herein are having no right to get back the document relating to the attached property from the applicant herein. 3. The point for consideration is as to whether the respondents herein are entitled to get back their four documents, which are in the custody of the applicant herein, despite attachment existing in respect of the B scheduled property(E.P.No.259 of 2007) and inspite of failure on the part of the respondents herein in paying the award amount so far, in favour of the applicant herein? 4. At this juncture, I call up and recollect the following maxim: "He who seeks equity must do equity and he who comes to equity must come with clean hands". 4. At this juncture, I call up and recollect the following maxim: "He who seeks equity must do equity and he who comes to equity must come with clean hands". This maxim is not only applicable for obtaining equitable reliefs, but also squarely applicable in respect of all litigants who want a positive order in their favour. 5. A litigant cannot assert that one part of the award has to be enforced in his favour even though he would be blatantly and flagrantly saying that he would not comply with the other part of the decree. It is for the executing Court under Section 47 of C.P.C. to look into the matter and deal with it in a justifiable manner. 6. Here peculiarly two E.Ps are pending as stated supra. One part of the award is in favour of the applicant herein so as to enable the applicant to recover the amounts from the respondents herein; whereas, based on other part of the same award the respondents herein in their E.P. claim the documents, which are in the custody of the applicant herein. In the meanwhile, the Court attached the B scheduled property in the process of recovering the dues payable by the respondents in favour of the applicant. Wherefore it is quite axiomatically and apparently, pellucidly and palpably clear that the respondents herein having committed default in discharging the award amount and also facing the attachment order in respect of the B scheduled property, cannot insist that they are entitled to get back the documents relating to the B scheduled property. However, in respect of the documents pertaining to A, C, and D scheduled properties there is no attachment and there are also allegations made by the respondents as against the applicant that within 90 days he did not return the documents. 7. Even though 90 days time is prescribed for return of the documents by the applicant to the respondents in the award, under the award no time limit has been fixed for payment of the amount by the respondents to the applicant and in such a case, it has to be construed that immediately such payment ought to have been made by the respondents. 8. I call up and recollect one other maxim "let the accuser be free from accusation". 8. I call up and recollect one other maxim "let the accuser be free from accusation". A party to a litigation before accusing the other party should understand that the former is free from accusation. 9. But here, what I could see is that both the parties hurled accusation as against each other and both at one point of time committed default also in complying with the award. In such a case under Section 47 of the C.P.C., the Court has got power to regulate the proceedings. It is therefore crystal clear that without discharging the award amount, the respondents cannot demand the applicant to return the documents pertaining to the B scheduled property which is under attachment. In fact, if B Scheduled property is sold ultimately by the Court, then the Court has to return the title deed also to the auction purchaser and in such a case, the Court has to obtain those documents from the applicant herein and retain them in Court. 10. As far as the other documents are concerned, the applicant herein should necessarily deposit those documents in Court and the same have to be returned to the respondents herein, as there is no attachment over them. As such I would like to resolve the issue by passing the order thus: The applicant herein, within a period of one month from this date shall deposit all the four title deeds in Court. Whereupon the respondents are at liberty to take back the documents pertaining to A, C and D scheduled properties. The registry shall retain the documents in respect of B scheduled property of E.P.No.202 of 2009. Accordingly, application No.1568 of 2010 is partly allowed modifying the order of the Master. Consequently application No.1569 of 2010 is closed.