Judgment :- 1. Inveighing the orders dated 29.04.2010 and 25.02.2010 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Chingleput in E.P.No.25 of 2009 and in E.A.No.49 of 2009, in Arbitration Award dated 01.09.2008, these two civil revision petitions, viz., CRP NPD No.1774 of 2010 and CRP NPD No.2623 of 2010 are focused. 2. O.A. No.739 of 2009 has been filed for obtaining an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from in any way executing the arbitration award dated 01.09.2008, pending disposal of the suit O.S.No.228 of 2008 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Maduranthakam. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts, absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two civil revision petitions and O.A. No.739 of 2009 would run thus: a] Indubitably and indisputably, the parties involved in this matter agreed for a consent award to be passed under the Arbitration Act. Whereupon on 01.09.2008 the consent award was passed by the learned Arbitrator concerned. Subsequently, the respondents herein did choose to file the execution petition for executing the award and as of now, the said execution petition is pending in E.P.No.25 of 2009 before the learned Principal District Judge, Chingleput. b] Earlier, the executing court set the revision petitioner herein exparte and also ordered attachment of the immovable property concerned. Subsequently, E.A. was filed to get set aside the exparte order passed in the E.P. and it was allowed; thereafter counter also was filed by the revision petitioner in the E.P. However, the E.A.No.49 of 2009, which was filed for getting the order of attachment raised was dismissed. It appears that the Executing court proceeded with the execution and without serving sale notice in person on the judgment debtors, it is found recorded by the Executing Court as though the sale notice was affixed. c] Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such a procedure adopted by the lower authority the revision petitioner herein filed CRP NPD No.1774 of 2010, and as against the dismissal of E.A.No.49 of 2009 in getting the attachment raised, CRP NPD No.2623 of 2010 has been filed. Meanwhile O.A.No.739 of 2009 has been filed invoking Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. 5. Meanwhile O.A.No.739 of 2009 has been filed invoking Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. 5. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner in all the matters, placing reliance on the grounds found set out therein, would develop his argument thus: i] The consent award passed contains several conditions and unless the respondents herein comply with those conditions, the question of executing the award as a decree would not arise. However, without complying with the conditions, which the respondents herein ought to have complied with, they simply filed the execution petition as against which alone the revision petitioner herein filed counter. ii] While so, the Executing Court which passed the exparte attachment should have also set aside the order of attachment but it failed to do so and the reasons found set out in the order in refusing to raise the attachment are not tenable in law. iii] Even though the revision petitioner has been very much available at the concerned address, the Executing Court simply recorded as though the sale notice was served by affixture and as such the procedure adopted by the Executing Court was against law. iv] Without giving an opportunity to the parties concerned, whatever order passed should be set aside, as principles of natural justice, would warrant the same. However, the Executing Court failed to resort to the principles of natural justice, warranting interference by this court in these revisions. 6. Per contra, refuting and challenging the contentions and the arguments as put forth on the side of the revision petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents would detail and delineate thus: i] The revision petitioner herein got from the Executing Court, number of adjournments from 14.08.2009 till 09.11.2009 for the purpose of filing counter. The executing court on seeing that the opportunities extended were not utilised by the revision petitioner herein, set it exparte. However, the same court subsequently set aside the exparte order and that too on no objection having been endorsed by the respondents herein. When such is the position, it would be too much on the part of the revision petitioner herein to expect that the Executing court should have also raised the order of attachment. However, the same court subsequently set aside the exparte order and that too on no objection having been endorsed by the respondents herein. When such is the position, it would be too much on the part of the revision petitioner herein to expect that the Executing court should have also raised the order of attachment. ii) No doubt, charge was created over the immovable property concerned as per the consent award and it is an unregistered one and in order to get the respondents’ right safe-guarded, the attachment was got effected and pending hearing of Execution Petition, if the attachment is raised, there might be likelihood of alienations and that would complicate the issue and third party interest also might creep into the matter. iii) Regarding the affixture of the sale notice is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that in this case after perusing the records alone, the Executing Court recorded that there was proper service by affixture, warranting no interference by this court. 7. The points for consideration are as to: 1. Whether the application in OA No.739 of 2009 filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act is tenable in the facts and circumstances of this case ? 2. Whether the revision petitioner is entitled to get the attachment raised and also to get the order recording as though the sale notice was served by affixture, set aside ? 8. At the hearing the learned senior counsel for the applicant in O.A.NO.739 of 2009 would make a categorical submission that he would withdraw the said application with liberty to raise all the points raised therein before the Executing Court. He has also made an endorsement to that effect in the application. 9. As such, giving liberty to the applicant to raise all those points before the Executing Court, the O.A.No.739 of 2009 is dismissed as withdrawn. 10. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner would place reliance on the decision of this court passed in CRP No.1510 of 1990 dated 13.07.1990 (Arjuna Gounder vs. Govindaraju Reddiar). An excerpt from it would run thus: “14…………………………….Under sub rule (1) of Rule 32, the requirement which should be satisfied is that the judgment-debtor or having had opportunity to obey the decree has wilfully failed to obey it. An excerpt from it would run thus: “14…………………………….Under sub rule (1) of Rule 32, the requirement which should be satisfied is that the judgment-debtor or having had opportunity to obey the decree has wilfully failed to obey it. Unless and until the court gives a finding to that effect, the court is not entitled to pass any order of attachment or detention in civil prison. I am of the view that the jurisdiction of the court to pass an order of attachment of detention in civil prison arises only after giving a finding that the judgment debt or has wilfully disobeyed the decree after having had an opportunity to obey the same. In the absence of such a finding, any order passed by the court granting attachment or directing detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison is a nullity.” No doubt, there could be no quarrel over such a proposition. However, a precedent has to be applied to a certain set of facts, which are akin to the facts involved in the cited precedent. The ratio decidendi of a precedent is of ut-most importance. 11. Here the peculiar situation as detailed and delineated on the side of the respondents, is that due opportunity was given to the revision petitioner from August 2009 till November 2009 to file counter but that was not utilised by the judgment debtor and whereupon alone the court ordered attachment of the immovable property. If the court without even giving an opportunity in a complicated matter, simply in a one sided manner passed an order of attachment, then the matter would be some-what different. But here, in my opinion, the time granted from 14.08.2009 to 09.11.2009 was more than sufficient for filing counter and because of the non filing of the counter by the revision petitioner, the Executing Court with an intention to protect the immovable property involved in the E.P, ordered attachment. If the counter was filed in time, the E.P. court would have heard both and passed order and depending upon that the attachment would have followed. But in this case, the opportunity given was not utilised by the revision petitioner herein; whereupon alone the exparte order was passed in the Execution petition and consequently attachment was effected. 12. If the counter was filed in time, the E.P. court would have heard both and passed order and depending upon that the attachment would have followed. But in this case, the opportunity given was not utilised by the revision petitioner herein; whereupon alone the exparte order was passed in the Execution petition and consequently attachment was effected. 12. No doubt, on the application filed by the revision petitioner herein, the exparte order in the Execution Petition was set aside however, the court did not raise the attachment as prayed for in E.A.No.49 of 2009 stating certain reasons. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents herein would submit that a charge was created as per the award and it was not a registered one and in order to protect the interest of the respondents herein alone, such an order was obtained by the respondents herein, who happened to be the petitioners in the Execution Petition and in such a case, pending hearing of Execution petition, if attachment order is raised there would be likelihood of alienation and third party interest creeping into the matter, would arise. 14. I would like to refer to OrderXXI Rule 22 of CPC, which would highlight and spotlight the fact that if the Execution Petition is filed within two years from the date of passing of the decree, even notice is not required. Attachment before judgment is entirely on a different footing from an order of attachment during the Execution proceedings. No doubt, the principle of natural justice, “audi alterampartem” warrants hearing of the other side. 15. In this case, in fact without resorting to Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC, at the initial stage itself, ample opportunities for the revision petitioner to raise its objection were given but not been utilised by the revision petitioner herein. Whereupon alone, attachment was ordered. In such a case, pending hearing of the Execution Petition, if the attachment order is raised that would not be in the interest of justice. 16. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents and I am of the view that a time frame could be fixed for the disposal of the Execution Petitioner itself as already counter has been filed and the execution petition is pending. 16. I could see considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents and I am of the view that a time frame could be fixed for the disposal of the Execution Petitioner itself as already counter has been filed and the execution petition is pending. Hence, the Executing court shall see that the execution petition itself is disposed of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Depending upon the order in Execution Petition, so to say, if the Execution petition itself is dismissed, then it goes without saying that the attachment effected will automatically get erased as otherwise, the attachment shall hold good as such. 17. The recording of the executing court to the effect that the sale notice was served by affixture, in my opinion, may not be correct and it requires to be set aside. When parties are fighting at arms length there is no question of serving sale notice by affixture would arise and in the event of proceeding further in the Execution Petition, certainly, the revision petitioner herein is entitled for a fresh sale notice. 18. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner would implore and entreat that if the Execution Petition is going to be dealt with by the learned Judge concerned keeping in mind the reasons as found set out by him in refusing to raise the attachment, then the revision petitioner would be prejudiced. I make it clear that the Executing Court shall deal with the Execution Petition without in any way influenced by any of the findings given by the learned Judge concerned in refusing to raise the attachment. Accordingly, this point is decided. 19. In the result, OA NO.739 of 2009 is dismissed as withdrawn and both the revision petitions, viz., CRP NPD Nos.1774 of 2010 and CRP NPD No.2623 of 2010 are disposed of with the above observation. The lower court shall also give due opportunity to the revision petitioner herein to file additional counter whereupon the decree holder would be entitled to file reply to it and within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the matter shall be disposed of as per law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.