JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that, respondent No.1-Punjab Agro Foodgrains Corporation Limited (for brevity “the PAF Corporation”), is a company duly owned by the Government of Punjab and registered under The Companies Act, 1956. During the crop season for the year 2001-2002, it purchased the paddy from the market at support price. Respondent No.3 M/s Jagdambey Gram Udyog Samiti (for short “the respondent-Samiti”), through its partners (governing body), entered into an agreement (Annexure P13) with the PAF Corporation for custom milling/shelling the paddy. In pursuance thereof, the PAF Corporation has actually delivered 26018 bags, weighing 13009-00 quintals of paddy to the respondent-Samiti, vide valid receipt for custom milling and shelling. As per the pointed agreement, the respondent-Samiti was required to mill the paddy and deliver the rice to the FCI on or before 30.6.2002. Not only that, the respondent-Samiti was granted the licence by the District Food & Supplies Controller to shell the paddy, which was valid upto 31.3.2004. The respondent-Samiti, by way of resolution dated 6.10.2000, authorized its Secretary to carry on the business with the PAF Corporation, for shelling the paddy from the year 2000-2001 onwards. All the JDs did not return the paddy to the PAF Corporation, committed the fraud and misappropriated its more than one crores of rupees. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Retired) as sole arbitrator under the provisions of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). He passed the impugned award dated 8.4.2009 (Annexure P8) jointly and severally against the JDs in the following manner (paras 14 and 15) :- “14. Thus, from the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of the corporation stands fully established. He passed the impugned award dated 8.4.2009 (Annexure P8) jointly and severally against the JDs in the following manner (paras 14 and 15) :- “14. Thus, from the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of the corporation stands fully established. Resultantly, it is held that the claimants corporation is entitled to recover the cost of 445-123 MTs of due rice against 664- 350 MTs of paddy @ Rs.10633.10 totaling Rs.4746391/-, the cost of 19218 empty bags retained by the miller @ Rs.19.62 per bag amounting to Rs.377057/-Sales Tax @ 4.4% to the tune of Rs.16590/- ID Cess @ 1 % on MSP 1200-90 MTs x Rs.56/- amounting to Rs.67250/- & guarantee fee amounting to Rs.4651/- as detailed in the statement of accounts i.e. totaling Rs.5211939/- as on 29.9.2002 from the respondents. 15. Accordingly, an award is passed in favour of the claimants corporation and against the respondents in the manner detailed below:- 1. that the claimant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5211939/-from the respondents jointly or severally with agreed interest @ 21% per annum w.e.f. 29.9.2002 till the date of award. 2. that the claimant is further held entitled to interest @ 18% on the sum total of the due amount so arrived after calculation from the date of the award till the date of actual realization as per provisions of Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. that the costs of the arbitration proceedings are quantified at Rupees ten thousand only which shall be borne by the respondents; and 4. that the respondents are directed to make the payment of the award within a period of 3 months to the claimant failing which the claimant corporation shall be at liberty to recover the same through execution in accordance with law.” 2. It is not a matter of dispute that the pointed award has already attained the finality. As the JDs did not make the payment of the awarded amount, therefore, the PAF Corporation filed the execution petition (Annexure P9). Instead of making payment, the petitioners-JDs filed the objection petitions (Annexures P10 & P11) to object the award. 3. Taking into consideration the entire facts & evidence on record, the executing Court (Additional District Judge) dismissed the indicated objection petitions, by means of impugned order dated 16.1.2014 (Annexure P12). 4. Instead of making payment, the petitioners-JDs filed the objection petitions (Annexures P10 & P11) to object the award. 3. Taking into consideration the entire facts & evidence on record, the executing Court (Additional District Judge) dismissed the indicated objection petitions, by means of impugned order dated 16.1.2014 (Annexure P12). 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners-JDs have preferred the present petition, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, having gone through the record with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context. 6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the respondent-Samiti was a registered Samiti established for religious purposes, so, the impugned awarded amount cannot be recovered from the petitioners-JDs, is neither tenable nor the observations of Gauhati High Court in case Chandan Mall Bapna v. Abdul Gani Meah 1976 AIR (Gauhati) 54 are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein, it was observed that a void decree cannot be executed and if an objection is taken by judgment debtor to that effect the executing court shall have to decide it under Section 47 CPC. 7. Sequelly, it was held by Andhra Pradesh High Court in case Someswara Swamy Vari Devastanam v. Dasam Suryanarayana and others 2004 AIR (AP) 223 that “a decree passed against the office bearers of the Society cannot be said to be the decree against them in their personal capacity.” Possibly, no one can dispute in regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner-JDs in the instant controversy, for the reasons mentioned here-inbelow. 8. As is evident from the record that the respondent-Samiti has agreed to custom milling/shelling the paddy and entered into an agreement with the PAF Corporation in this relevant connection. The Samiti was granted the licence by the District Food & Supplies Controller under The Punjab Trade Articles (Licensing & Control) Order, 1999, to shell the paddy, which was valid upto 31.3.2004. It is not a matter of dispute that the indicated quantity of paddy was actually delivered by the PAF Corporation to the respondent-Samiti for custom milling. The Samiti was granted the licence by the District Food & Supplies Controller under The Punjab Trade Articles (Licensing & Control) Order, 1999, to shell the paddy, which was valid upto 31.3.2004. It is not a matter of dispute that the indicated quantity of paddy was actually delivered by the PAF Corporation to the respondent-Samiti for custom milling. Instead of returning/delivering the rice to the PAF Corporation within the extended period, the petitioners- JDs did not return the pointed paddy, committed fraud and misappropriated more than a sum of Rs. 1¼ crore. Consequently, the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator, in pursuance of the agreement between the parties. After following the due procedure and affording the parties adequate opportunities to lead evidence, the arbitrator passed the award dated 8.4.2009 (Annexure P8) in the presence of the parties against the Samiti and other JDs jointly and severally, in the manner depicted here-in-above. Once the respondent-Samiti has obtained the licence under The Punjab Trade Articles (Licensing & Control) Order, 1999 and entered into the agreement to shell/custom milling the paddy, then, it does not lie in the mouth of petitioners-JDs and it cannot possibly be saith that the respondent-Samiti was established only for a religious purpose, as contrary urged on their (JDs) behalf. 9. There is yet another important aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from a different angle. The bare perusal of the indicated award would reveal that the petitioners-JDs have raised similar preliminary objections in their reply before the Arbitrator, which, they now sought to urge, in the present petition. The arbitrator, who was a retired Additional District and Sessions Judge, duly appreciated the evidence on record, negated the same very objections of petitioners-JDs & having completed all the codal formalities, accepted the claim of the PAF Corporation, passed the arbitral award (Annexure P8) and held the respondent-Samiti and other JDs jointly and severally liable to make payment of the awarded amount in this relevant direction. 10. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the JDs have not challenged the pointed arbitral award u/s 34 of the Act and it has already attained the finality. That means, all the objections, now taken by them, have already been considered and negated by the Arbitrator in the award (Annexure P8). 10. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the JDs have not challenged the pointed arbitral award u/s 34 of the Act and it has already attained the finality. That means, all the objections, now taken by them, have already been considered and negated by the Arbitrator in the award (Annexure P8). In case, the petitioners were aggrieved, in any manner, then, they ought to have challenged the award u/s 34 of the Act in an appropriate forum within the stipulated period. In that eventuality, they are now estopped and cannot be permitted to raise the similar objections time and again. They appear to have filed the objections in order to delay the execution petition (Annexure P9) and to avoid payment of the awarded amount. The executing Court (Additional District Judge) has correctly dismissed their objection petitions (Annexures P10 and P11), by virtue of a detailed and reasoned order (Annexure P12), the operative part of which, is as under (para 19):- “Having regard to my discussion above, it is held that the Execution application filed by the decree Holder is executable against all the Jds jointly and severally. The Judgment Debtor No.3, 4 and 7 were members of JD No.1 at the time of execution of the agreement with the Decree Holder. All the Jds including Objectors are jointly as well severally liable to return the decretal amount along with interest and costs. Keeping in view the contents of award, the Decree Holder has the liberty to recover the Decretal amount from all the Jds including Objectors. The present execution application preferred by the Decree Holder is very much maintainable against the Jds/objectors as they failed to discharge their liability, to return the decretal amount, within the stipulated period of three months. Accordingly, issues No.1, 2, 3 and 4 are decided against the Objectors and in favour of the Decree Holder.” 11. Meaning thereby, the Executing Court (ADJ) has examined the matter in right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with, in the exercise of superintendence powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Meaning thereby, the Executing Court (ADJ) has examined the matter in right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with, in the exercise of superintendence powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioners-JDs, so, the impugned order (Annexure P12) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition filed by the petitioners-JDs is hereby dismissed as such. ---------0.B.S.0------------