JUDGMENT 1. This Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the order of the learned Master, dated 5.2.2013 made in E.P. Diary No. 33772 or 2012 and thereby direct the Registry to number the Execution Petition and deal with the same in accordance with law for the following grounds: (A) The order of the learned Judge is per se, illegal, unsustainable, untenable in law and on facts. (B) The learned Master was wrong in holding that the principles enunciated in Khalell Ahmed Dakhani v. Hatti Gold Mines Co. Limited, 2000 (3) SCC 755 , shall not be applicable to the present and the Execution Petition having been filed without leave of the Court shall not be entertained by the Court and has held that the prior permission is necessary for initiating proceedings as against the Judgment-Debtor and relied upon a judgment reported in Ram Narayan Bhattad v. Krishna Bai Jhaver, 2004 (2) CTC 81, which is inapplicable to the facts of the case. (C) The learned Judge has committed a grave manifest error of law in misconstruing the provisions which relate to the implementation of the Award and supplemental award passed by the Hon'ble Arbitrator. (D) The learned Judge ought to have noticed under Order 1, Rule 3, except to the extent specifically provided all these Rules provisions of the Courts shall apply to all proceedings the Rules and Forms mentioned in Appendix III and all previous Rules and Forms and the provisions of the Court, so far as such provisions or inconsistent Rules or Forms are hereby repealed and superseded and the following Rules and Orders and Forms shall stand in lieu thereof. Unfortunately, the learned Master without adverting to the provisions contained under Order 39, Rules 6, 7, 8 & 9 of O.S. Rules has misconstrued the provisions of Section 39(4) of CPC and has held that the Original Side shall not have jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Petition filed by the Applicant and rejected the same by the impugned Order with the reasoning which are unsound, untenable in law and on facts. (E) The learned Master ought to have noticed under Order 21, Rule 3, which reads as under: “Land situate in more than one jurisdiction.—Where immovable property forms one estate or tenure situate within the jurisdiction of two or more Courts, any one of such Courts, may attach and sell the entire estate or tenure”. and also Order 39, Rules 6, 7, 8 & 9 will have to be followed strictly which are analogous to Order 21, Rule 3 of CPC. (F) The Learned Master ought to have adverted to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India, 2005 (6) SCC 344 , and also to the Judgment reported in Mohit Bhargava v. Bharat Bhushan Bhargave, 2007 (5) CTC 298 (SC) : 2007 (4) SCC 795 , and the principles indicated in Ram Narayan v. Vimala Jhavar, 2002 (1) CTC 48 ; and Ram Narayan Bhattad v. Krishna Bai Jhaver, 2004 (2) CTC 81, and the construction should have been in a harmonial manner and as such the learned Master has totally got confused with the provisions of Section 39(4), C.P.C. or Order 21, Rules 3, and construed as if we are laying simultaneous executions against the judgment-Debtor, what is sought to be done is a consolidate comprehensive Execution Petition and in such circumstances, the learned Master should have followed Order 39, Rules 6, 7, 8 & 9 of O.S. Rules and also the principles enunciated in Khalell Ahmed Dakhani v. Hatti Gold Mines Co. Limited, 2000 (3) SCC 755 , and as such, the learned has committed a grave manifest error of law relying upon a passage reported in Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253, wherein if an action is required to be taken in a particular manner it had to be taken that manner only or not any other manner. The said decision with great respect to the learned Master shall not have any bearing to a proceeding initiated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The said decision with great respect to the learned Master shall not have any bearing to a proceeding initiated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (G) The learned Master has misconstrued Suit on land as reported in Dhanalakshmi v. Ekanthan, 1997 (3) LW 391 , and the issue before the Court is whether the Applicant (Appellant) is entitled to implement the decree as against the Judgment-Debtor in respect of the properties located within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court as well as within the jurisdiction of the District Court, Tiruvallur, District Court, Kancheepuram, District Court, Villupuram when such is the position, Order 39, Rules 6, 7, 8 & 9 contemplates the mode of execution which has been totally misread by the learned Master which has resulted in manifest miscarriage of justice. This Application coming on this day before this Court for hearing the Court made the following order: This is an Application to set aside the Order of the learned Master dated 5.2.2013, made in EP Diary No. 33772 of 2012 and direct the Registry to number the Execution Petition and to deal with the same in accordance with law. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner in reiterating the averments made in the Affidavit filed in support of the Petition has submitted that the Petitioner has filed E.P. before the Master Court for implementation of the award, dated 19.12.2011 and additional award dated 9.8.2012 under Order 21, Rules 13, 54 & 82, C.P.C. by way of selling the properties set out in the Annexure A, B, C & D and pointed out that except the property under Annexure B item No. 1 at Chennai, all other properties are in other districts i.e. situated out side Chennai and as per the Rules of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules, Order 39, Rules 6, 7, 8 & 9 since the Arbitration proceedings initiated before this Court under Section 9 of the arbitration Act and Arbitrator was also appointed and Award also passed at Chennai and hence, the Petitioner has rightly come forward with the Execution Application before the learned Master for realising the concerned award amount. 3. 3. Furthermore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is entitled to file Execution Petition before this Court, wherein the original action has been initiated as pointed out above and in support of his contention, he cited the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khalell Ahmed Dakhani v. The Hatti Gold Mines Co. Ltd., 2000 (3) SCC 755 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as hereunder: “In these circumstances we are of the view that the Principal District Judge, Raichur should not have entertained the Application for execution and order attachment of movable properties of the Respondents. The High Court referred to the concession by both the parties that all the Application under the Act had to be treated as original Suits and if the Court finds that it had no jurisdiction to entertain it cannot dismiss the Suit but has to return the same for the presentation to the proper Court. Whatever may be concession of the parties, we are of the view in the circumstances of the present case Principal District Judge, Raichur should have stayed his hands and should not have entertained the Execution Application by the Appellant. High Court took a correct view of the matter and rightly set aside the impugned Orders. We therefore, find no merit in the Appeal. It is dismissed with costs.” 4. With due respect after following the above judgment and after applying the principle laid down this Court holds that the Execution Petition has been rightly filed by the Petitioner before this Court and the approach of the Master in rejecting the above contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also not considering the above judgment cited above are not sustainable. In view of the provisions contained under Order 39, Rules 6, 7, 8 & 9 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that no permission is contemplated and also in support of the above contention the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in a case in Ram Narayan v. Vimala Jhavar, 2002 (1) CTC 48 , wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows: “In view of the decisions relied upon by the Appellants referred to above and also in the absence of any requirement either in the Civil Procedure Code or in the Original Side Rules of the High Court which do not mandate obtaining any such permission we are unable to agree with the views of the learned Single Judge and we hold that there is no necessity for the Plaintiff/decree-holder to obtain such permission from this Court for simultaneous execution and that therefore, the Order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside. In the result, the Appeals are allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.Ps. are closed.” 5. As decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the above cited case and after following the same, this Court holds that there is sufficient grounds to initiate the E.P. proceedings before this Court and no such permission is required even though the properties are beyond the jurisdiction of Chennai and hence, the decision arrived in this regard of the Master is liable to be set aside. 6. 6. At this juncture, it is made clear that if the property to be sold by this Court i.e. Chennai property is not sufficient enough to satisfy the Award decree, after due attachment of all the properties to be ordered by this Court, the Petitioner herein can file an Affidavit to bring the properties outside the jurisdiction of this Court for sale and for realisation of the balance award amount and in such a manner this Court can transmit the decree for realisation and at the same time it is also made clear that the simultaneous action of the realisation of the Sale proceedings to realise the Award amount shall not be effected for which the necessary the permission of the Court is very much required as decide by the Division Bench of this Court in a case in Ram Narayan Bhattad v. Krishna Bai Jhavar, 2004 (2) CTC 81. 7. No doubt the Master has not applied the proper preposition laid in the above judgment and came to the misconception and hold that for taking action by way of E.P. to realise the award amount, the permission of the Court is necessarily required and thereby rejected the E.P. Hence, in the above circumstances, the Order of the learned Master is set aside and the Registry is directed to number the E.P. and proceed in accordance with law. Moreover, it is pointed out that the above E.P. has been filed under the provisions of the Order 21, Rules 13, 54 & 82, C.P.C. but the High Court Original Side Rules, Order 39, Rules 6, 7, 8 & 9 has not been incorporated. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has rightly submitted that in advertedly, the same has not been incorporated and requested this Court to permit the Petitioner to cure this defect. In accepting the submission this Court permitted the Petitioner to incorporate the same as pointed out above. This Petition is allowed. No costs.