JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. 1. The respondent/judgment debtor has moved the present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC) ostensibly for recalling an order, but without mentioning the date of the order or the proceedings relating to that order and instead it is prayed that “this application may very kindly be allowed and execution petition filed by the decree holder/non-applicant may kindly be dismissed being not maintainable.” An omnibus prayer to the effect that “any other suitable relief as may be deemed just and fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the applicant and against the non applicant” has also been made. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to filing of the present application may be noticed first. The main petition being Execution Petition No. 10 of 2013, Sh. Deepak Arora & another vs. Vijay Khanna has been filed by the petitioners/decree holders seeking to execute the award dated 1.12.2012, passed by the sole Arbitrator, Justice D.P. Sood, J (Retd), pursuant to a dispute between the parties, which admittedly was subject matter of an arbitration clause contained in the agreement between them. It is further admitted case of the parties, who for the sake of convenience shall hereinafter be referred to as the decree holders (in short ‘DHs’) and judgment debtor (for short ‘JD’), that the award is in favour of the DHs and against the JD. 3. Indisputably being aggrieved the JD moved this Court on 25.2.2013 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the Act’), for setting aside the award, which challenge came to be registered as Arbitration Case No. 4015 of 2013. However, on 28.2.2013 it was returned by the Registry to the JD with certain objections said to be numbering 6. The matter was refiled on 17.7.2013, by which time the DHs had already filed the present execution petition on May 1, 2013. 4. Further indisputably, the aforesaid Arbitration Case No. 4015 of 2013 filed by the JD under Section 34 of the Act was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 10.12.2013, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court with liberty reserved to the JD “to file fresh objections, strictly in accordance with law, as advised.” A self attested true copy of this order is on the record at pages 150 and 151. 5. Still further, it is not in dispute that after the challenge under Section 34 of the Act being Arbitration Case No. 4015 of 2013 came to be disposed of as withdrawn vide the aforesaid order dated 10.12.2013, the JD has not filed any fresh objections, for which liberty was reserved to him under that order. 6. Now it shall be appropriate to advert to the orders passed in the Execution Petition starting from 27.5.2013 and from time to time thereafter. On 27.5.2013 notice in the Execution Petition along with accompanying applications being OMP Nos. 196 and 197 of 2013 was ordered to be issued to the JD returnable on 10.7.2013. In the meantime by an order dated 11.6.2013, in OMP No. 262 of 2013, filed by the DHs under Section 21, Rule 54 read with Section 151 CPC for attachment of the immoveable properties belonging to the JD, an ex parte ad interim injunction order directing him not to alienate or encumber the following properties in any manner, whatsoever, till further orders was passed:- “1. Land bearing khasra No. 172, 173, 239, 237 & 240 situated in Mohal Kand, Mouza Khanyara, Sub Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra (H.P.) alngwith Hotel structure standing thereon known as “SNOW HERMITAGE RESORTS. 2. Flat No. 171-A, MIG Flats, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.” 7. The JD was thereafter served and appeared in the Court on 10.7.2013, when time was granted to him to file objections to the Execution Petition, if any, and reply to OMP No. 262 of 2013 for attachment, which was extended vide order dated 2.8.2013 subject to costs of `2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) and ultimately the right to file objections was closed vide order dated 27.8.2013, owing to failure on the part of the JD to file such objections. 8. Against the foregoing backdrop, out of the aforesaid attached properties, the one mentioned at Sr. No. 1 was ordered to be put to sale by way of public auction vide order dated 25.3.2014 in OMP No. 69 of 2014. 9. It was thereafter that the present application being OMP No. 196 of 2014 was moved by the JD for “recalling the order” but without specifying the date of the order or the proceedings pertaining to the same. Ms. 9. It was thereafter that the present application being OMP No. 196 of 2014 was moved by the JD for “recalling the order” but without specifying the date of the order or the proceedings pertaining to the same. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the JD submits that as a duly signed copy of the award was not made available by the learned Arbitrator to the JD, the limitation for laying challenge under Section 34 of the Act has not in fact started to run and on the same analogy the execution to enforce that award is also not maintainable. However, the twofold submissions are without any substance as would be seen from the discussion to follow hereinafter. 10. After the date of announcement of the award stated at the end, the learned Arbitrator has also appended the following endorsement under his signatures, designation and date line:- “Copy of the AWARD duly signed by this Tribunal be sent to both the parties in person or through their learned counsels. Note:- No separate amount of deposit for the claim or counter claim or deposit or supplementary deposit as an advance for the costs referred to in sub-section (8) of Section 31 of Act No. 26 of 1996, was either directed or deposited with this Tribunal. Parties have themselves shared the expenses in equal shares as per their own (oral) agreement. Sd/- 01/12/2012 (Justice D.P. Sood, J (Retd) Sole Arbitrator” 11. It is universally settled that official acts are presumed to have been performed in accordance with the relevant Rules and law and as shown in the relevant records/documents and such presumption relating to judicial/quasi judicial proceedings is even stronger. Even if, it is assumed for a moment for the sake of argument that a signed copy of the award in question dated 1.12.2012, was not received by the JD, it is not understandable as to how he proceeded to file a challenge against the same in this Court under Section 34 of the Act. Even if, it is assumed for a moment for the sake of argument that a signed copy of the award in question dated 1.12.2012, was not received by the JD, it is not understandable as to how he proceeded to file a challenge against the same in this Court under Section 34 of the Act. It also not shown as to what steps have been taken by him till date to obtain a signed copy of the award, even after lapse of a considerable period of more than one and half years spanning between 1.12.2012 till date, that is, 8.7.2014, albeit the fact that recourse to obtain a copy of the award in the interregnum could have very well been taken by him in accordance with law and thereafter by making a prayer for condonation of delay in laying the challenge under Section 34 of the Act by taking recourse to the proviso to sub section (3) of Section 34 of the Act. 12. Above all, once the right to file objections by the JD in the present Execution Petition having been closed by order of the Court as far back as 27.8.2013 and that order having attained finality without any challenge to the same, which position is also not disputed on behalf of the JD, prayer for “recalling the order”, but without giving the date of the order sought to be recalled and the proceedings relating to that order, dismissal of the Execution Petition cannot be considered being without any lawful cause or basis and is accordingly declined being without any merit. 13. Against the foregoing background, this Court is left with no other alternative except to proceed in the matter further in accordance with law. 14. In view of the above, the application is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.