JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Power of attorney on behalf of respondent be filed during the course of the day, as prayed. 2. Challenge herein is to the order passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in case No. 1 of 2011 whereby objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the petitioners-JDs in the pending execution proceedings have been rejected being not maintainable. The execution proceedings presently are at the stage of consideration of an application filed for seeking order qua detention of the petitioners-JDs herein in civil imprisonment. 3. Consequent upon exparte award passed against the petitioners-JDs execution petition was filed in the High Court of judicature at Kolkata, however, the petitioners-JDs resides within the jurisdiction of District Court, Shimla and as such, the execution petition has been transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla for further proceedings. It is during the course of proceedings in the execution proceedings the objections that the award sought to be executed as exparte have been passed behind the back of the petitioners-JDs and also that the objections Under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for want of signed copy could have also not been filed. An objection that some money given to the petitioners-JDs have erroneously been adjusted qua the payment of decreetal amount has been raised. The Arbitrator has allegedly failed to comply with the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act as no effective steps were taken to serve the JDs during the course of arbitration proceedings. 4. Having gone through the record available at this stage and also taking into consideration the rival submissions, it would not be improper to conclude that the order passed by learned District Judge is absolutely legal and valid. In the execution proceedings, that too when the execution petition has been transferred for execution to the Court below, the award either to be executed or the petitioners-JDs discharged from the liability. The Court below cannot go into the question as to whether the petitioners-JDs were not legally and validly served during the course of the arbitration proceedings and that they have not received the signed copy of the award because such award could have been agitated either before the Arbitrator or the High Court of judicature at Kolkata which has transferred the decree for execution to the Court below. 5. 5. The Court below, therefore, has not committed any illegality or irregularity while dismissing the application. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, this Court accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners-JDs qua deferring further proceedings in the application filed for seeking an order qua detention of the petitioners-JDs in civil imprisonment in order to enable them to approach the Arbitrator or the High Court of Kolkata, as the case may be, for seeking appropriate direction in the matter. Consequently, there shall be a direction to learned District Judge, Shimla to defer hearing in the application filed for seeking detention of the petitioners-JDs in civil imprisonment till 15th July, 2016 so that they are able to seek the remedy if available to them in accordance with law. 6. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.