JUDGMENT In present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 31.07.2009 passed below Exh.15 by the City Court Court, Ahmedabad in Execution Application No.153 of 2008. 2. So far as the factual background is concerned, it emerges from the record that the award in arbitration proceedings was passed on 24.11.2007. 2.1 Since the award was not complied with, the judgment-creditor filed Execution Petition No.153 of 2008 somewhere in July 2008. 2.2 After considering the material on record, the learned Court by order dated 31.07.2008 issued notices to the respondents i.e. present petitioners. 2.3 It also transpires that the respondents in the execution petition i.e. present petitioners entered appearance only in March 2009. 2.4 After entering appearance, the petitioners sought time to file objections. 2.5 In April 2009, the petitioners sought further time to file objections and the same request was repeated by the petitioners in June 2009 also followed by further request in July 2009. 2.6 Accordingly, right from the date when the Court issued notices, until July 2009, the petitioners herein (i.e. respondents in the execution petition) continued to seek time, on one ground or another, to file objections against the execution petition. 2.7 Ultimately, since any objections were not being filed in the matter and the matter was unnecessarily being adjourned, the learned Court considered it appropriate to issue, at the request of the judgment-creditor, Jangam warrant by order dated 31.07.2009. 2.8 It deserves to be noted that on 31.07.2009, neither the petitioners nor their advocate remained present, which was also one of the reasons that compelled the learned Court to issue Jangam warrant. 2.9 It is pertinent that after having got the proceedings adjourned on so many occasions when ultimately the learned Court issued Jangam warrant by order dated 31.07.2009, the petitioners, instead of approaching the learned Court, filed present petition on or around 20.08.2009 and challenged the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2009 directing issuance of Jangam warrant. The petition was resisted by the judgment-creditor i.e. present respondent by filing affidavit in October 2009. 3. At this stage i.e. upon objection (by way of affidavit) against the petition, the judgment-debtor i.e. present petitioners requested the Court to refer the matter to Mediation Centre for amicable settlement. 3.1 Considering the request of the petitioners the matter was referred, by order dated 25.06.2010, for mediation to the Mediation Centre, Gujarat High Court. 3. At this stage i.e. upon objection (by way of affidavit) against the petition, the judgment-debtor i.e. present petitioners requested the Court to refer the matter to Mediation Centre for amicable settlement. 3.1 Considering the request of the petitioners the matter was referred, by order dated 25.06.2010, for mediation to the Mediation Centre, Gujarat High Court. 3.2 It deserves to be mentioned that even before the learned Mediator, present petitioners i.e. the judgment debtor repeated the same conduct, which was before the Executing Court inasmuch as on 7th July, 9th July, 14th July, 15th July, 19th July, 21st July and 28th July, 2010 the petitioners did not attend the mediation proceedings, even after having requested the Court to refer the matter for mediation. 3.3 Thus, by the order dated 28.07.2010, after adjourning the proceedings for almost 7 times, when the learned Mediator felt that the petitioners were not willing to resolve the dispute, returned the proceedings to the Court with appropriate report. After the said report by the learned Mediator, now the matter is again listed before the Court. 4. Mr. M.M.Barot, learned advocate has appeared for the petitioners (judgment-debtor) and Mr. V.B.Gupta,learned advocate has appeared for the respondents (judgment-creditor). Mr. Barot has submitted that the order dated 31.07.2009 directing issuance of Jangam warrant is unjustified. 5. Per contra, Mr. Gupta has referred to the events and conduct of the petitioners since the date of the award and submitted that the award which was passed in November 2007 has not been executed until now and the petitioners have successfully delayed its execution until now and that therefore, the petition may not be entertained. 6. It is not in dispute that the arbitration proceedings have culminated into award dated 24.11.2007. 6.1 It is also not in dispute that the said award has not been challenged by the petitioners. The petitioners have not considered it necessary to honour the award and discharge their obligation. The petitioners have simply sat over the award and when execution petition came to be filed, the petitioners delayed the proceedings as much as they could by seeking adjournments on the grounds that they want to file objections, however, no objections were ever filed. 6.2 Ultimately, when the Court directed issuance of Jangam warrant, the petitioners immediately filed present petition. The petitioners have simply sat over the award and when execution petition came to be filed, the petitioners delayed the proceedings as much as they could by seeking adjournments on the grounds that they want to file objections, however, no objections were ever filed. 6.2 Ultimately, when the Court directed issuance of Jangam warrant, the petitioners immediately filed present petition. 6.3 Even after filing the petition, when they could not make out any good cause to challenge the award or even the order for Jangam Warrant, the petitioners requested the Court to refer the matter for mediation and there also did not attend the proceedings. 6.4 Ultimately, the learned Mediator had to submit the negative report and return the proceedings to the Court. 6.5 The aforesaid conduct of the petitioners need no elaboration. It speaks for itself. 6.6 In the aforesaid background of facts, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order directing issuance of Jangam warrant. 6.7 Arbitration proceedings are supposed to be expeditious remedy for resolution of dispute between the parties. When after prolonged proceedings award has been passed, delay in its execution cannot be countenanced or justified in any manner whatsoever unless the award is challenged in accordance with law before competent forum and any restrain order against the award is passed. 6.8 That being not the case in present matter, the petition does not hold any merits and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed. In view of disposal of main petition, inter relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. At this stage, Mr. Gupta has submitted that the respondent may be awarded cost. Considering present stage of the case, there shall not be any order of cost at this stage. It is clarified that cost to be the cost in execution proceedings.