(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tobegs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the order of attachment passed in E.P No 665 of 2021 in AOP NO 11/2013-2014 NH 5 dated 23-10-2025 by the learned XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vijayawada, NTR District,

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the order of attachment passed in E.P No. 665 of 2021 in AOP No 11/2013-2014 NH 5 by the learned XIII Additional District Judge at Vijayawada, NTR District dated 23-10-2025 by the learned XIII Additional District and sessions Judge at Vijayawada pending disposal of the C.R.P and pass)

Ravi Nath Tilhar, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 23.10.2025 passed in E.P.No.665 of 2021 in A.O.P.No.11/2013-14/NH-5 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada.

2. Heard Sri Akhil Krishnan, learned counsel representing Sri S.S.Varma, learned Standing Counsel for the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1

3. An Award No.11/2013-2014/NH-5 in Rc.No.B/1611/2011, dated 21.08.2013, was passed by the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition), Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzividu, determining the compensation. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the decree-holder approached the Arbitrator under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The Arbitrator & Joint Collector, Krishna, vide proceedings in Rc.No.G2A/226/2018, passed an award dated 29.06.2019 in favour of the 1st respondent and against the revision petitioner, enhancing the compensation to certain extent.

4. Aggrieved by the award dated 29.06.2019, the petitioner/Judgment-debtor No.2 filed A.O.P.No.35 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Machilipatnam, along with the application seeking condonation of delay under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”), and the same was allowed. The petitioner also filed another application seeking stay of operation of the award passed in Rc.No.G2A/226/2018, dated 29.06.2019, which is stated to be pending before the Court of the XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, to which the matter was made over, in A.O.P.No.21 of 2025.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stay application filed along with the petition under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 is still pending consideration. He submits that though the delay in filing the petition was condoned, the application for interim relief has not been disposed of till date. He further submits that, in the meantime, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No.665 of 2021 for execution of the Award, and in the said E.P., the impugned order dated 23.10.2025 has been passed. He submits that the Executing Court has taken the view that unless stay is granted, the execution proceedings can be continued.

6. The grievance raised is that, on the one hand the application seeking stay of the Award is pending consideration since 2022, which remains undisposed of, and on the other hand, the Award is being put to execution.

7. Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Execution Court. He submits that there is no stay of execution of the award, and consequently the award is executable. Learned counsel submits that the petition may be disposed of with appropriate directions to the concerned Court for expeditious disposal of the matter and that, subject to the deposit of a certain amount for the time being, appropriate orders may be passed in the execution case.

8. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that, in terms of Section 36(2) of the Act,1996, an Award becomes executable unless stayed by an order of the Court. However, once an application seeking grant of stay of the Award is filed, the same is required to be considered and disposed of expeditiously, so as to balance the rights of both parties and to avoid rendering the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 infructuous.

9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the XI Additional District Judge, Gudivada, to consider the application filed in A.O.P.No.21 of 2025, seeking stay of the Award vide proceedings in Rc.No.G2A/226/2018, dated 29.06.2019, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the 1st respondent herein, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10. Till disposal of the stay application, the further execution proceedings pursuant to the impugned Award dated 29.06.2019 and the impugned order dated 23.10.2025, shall remain stayed, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 1/3rd of the amount under execution, before the Executing Court within a period of two (02) weeks from today.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.