NAVITA SINGH, J.
1. This civil revision is preferred against the order dated 3.11.2012 passed by Smt. Harpreet Kaur Randhawa, Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the execution petition relating to arbitration award dated 2.9.2004 was dismissed. The present petitioners were the decree-holder, who had filed the petition.
2. The backdrop of the case is that an arbitration award was passed on 2.9.2004 by the sole arbitrator-PUNSUP, according to which, the present petitioners were held entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,66,361/- with interest @ 21% w.e.f 1.9.1997 till realization, recoverable from the respondents herein.
3. The respondents filed an objection petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the award but the petition was dismissed by the Court of Sh. Jatinderpal Singh Khurmi, Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide order dated 4.6.2009 Thereafter, the petitioners herein filed the execution petition, which was dismissed by the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the order passed by the Executing Court vide which the execution petition was dismissed on the ground that statement of account dated 29.8.2011 was prepared by the petitioners and copy of it was supplied to the respondents by the petitioners themselves and the final amount due according to that was Rs. 2,14,489/-. It was settled to be paid by the judgment debtors and the said amount having been paid, no claim survived.
5. Learned counsel, while referring to paras 7 and 8 of the impugned judgment, argued that the court below totally erred in holding that copy of statement of account was supplied by the petitioners to the respondents and that there was any settlement between the parties. She also made reference to the reply filed by the petitioners herein in the execution petition to the objections of the judgment debtors, wherein it was specifically mentioned by the decree-holders that no settlement whatsoever had been effected between the parties. The pleas taken in the objections were stated to be incorrect and it was pleaded that the award had not been satisfied.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that it was correct that copy of statement of account dated 29.8.2011 was not supplied by the petitioners to the respondents but copy of said statement was obtained by the respondents i.e judgment debtors, under the Right to Information Act. He further contended that be that as it may, the statement of account showed that the net amount recoverable from the respondents as on the date of that statement was Rs. 2,14,489/- and the Court had rightly held that the judgment debtors stood exonerated of all liabilities under the award by paying the amount shown as due in the statement of account.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the statement of account, which was filed as Annexure P-6 with the present petition, stating that the document was prepared internally in the office and was sent only to the Managing Director, PUNSUP, Chandigarh, for approval. The Managing Director, vide letter dated 29.11.2011 (Annexure P7 herein), rejected the proposal on the ground that there was no possibility of one time settlement as there was no such policy. The District Manager i.e the 2nd petitioner herein was directed to approach the party concerned i.e Judgment Debtors for the actual calculated amount and to request the party to withdraw the appeal filed in this court. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no copy of the statement of account was supplied, at any time, by the petitioners to the respondents, nor there was any proposal floated by the department to the respondents for any kind of settlement. The document was only a proposal which needed approval of the Managing Director, which was not granted.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that whatever be the nature of the document prepared and whether or not the copy was supplied to the Judgment Debtors, it remained a fact that such statement of account was prepared by the petitioners with nothing mentioned in that about any settlement and any discounts or reduction of the amount due. In such event, the fact that the net amount recoverable as on 29.8.2011 was shown to be Rs. 2,14,489/- cannot be put in oblivion. If the approval to the proposal to the statement of account had been granted by the Managing Director, in that event too, the amount recoverable from the respondents would have been the same. There is no mention in the document that any offer of settlement was there or that it required the consent of the Judgment Debtors or approval of the Managing Director.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, a settlement can be said to have been made where both the parties play an equal role and there is offer and acceptance or offer and counter offer. Thus, even if the document by way of statement of account was prepared for any other purpose by the petitioners, yet the court cannot be oblivious to the fact that after giving the details of all accounts and charges etc., the net amount recoverable was shown to be Rs. 2,14,489/-. The record was called by the court below and the original document was found therein. Nothing is mentioned in the said document that some discount was being given to the respondents and that would be subject to the approval by the Managing Director. If the department once arrived at the calculation given in the document, copy of which was obtained by the respondents under the Right to Information Act, it was for the department to explain cogently as to how that calculation could be varied later on.
10. The document prepared by the petitioners showing the amount recoverable on 29.8.2011 was simply sent to the Managing Director, PUNSUP, Chandigarh without any covering letter explaining that the department had any intention to settle the matter with the respondents or that the document was being sent for approval. This is being mentioned at the cost of repetition.
11. What was the need that arose for preparing the statement of account was not explained by the petitioners and if they prepared the statement showing the final amount recoverable on the date the statement was prepared, it would mean that the petitioners were entitled to recover the amount to that tune alone.
12. The order of the court below does not call for any interference. The petition is dismissed.