Debangsu Basak, J. - By the present application, the judgment debtor has sought dismissal of an execution proceeding initiated by the award-debtor on the ground that, the Court has no jurisdiction.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the award-debtor has submitted that, the award-debtor does not have any asset within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court. He has relied upon (Sundaram Finance Limited v. Abdul Samad and Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 622 [LQ/SC/2018/207] ) in support of the proposition that, an execution petition can be filed before the Court where the assets of the award-debtor are located. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the averments made at Paragraph 9 of the affidavit in support of the Master Summons and submitted that, the award-debtor categorically stated that, the award debtor does not have any asset or property within the jurisdiction of this Court. The award-debtor is described in the cause title of the proceeding to be located outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Moreover, none of the directors and principal officers of the award-debtor are residing within the local limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The award holder did not state in its application for execution that any asset of the award-debtor is within the jurisdiction of the Court. The person whom the award-holder seeks to examine on oath, on behalf of the award-debtor, is also not a resident within the jurisdiction of the Court. Consequently, according to him, the Court having no jurisdiction, the execution proceeding should be dismissed.

3. Learned Advocate appearing for the award-holder has submitted that, the award-holder is not aware of all the assets and properties of the award-debtor. The award-debtor may have some assets and properties within the jurisdiction. In order to find out as to whether the award-debtor has not any asset or property within the jurisdiction, it is imperative that, the award-holder is allowed to examine the award-debtor on oath. He has relied upon (Shew Kumar Nopany v. Grindlays Bank Limited, (1986) AIR Calcutta 328 and (D.V.M. Construction and Ors. v. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd., (2009) AIR Calcutta 227) and submitted that, an application for examination of the award-debtor is not an application for execution but an application in aid of the execution. He has submitted that, the Court should postpone the decision, as to the jurisdiction of the Court, till after the award-debtor is examined on oath.

4. The award-holder had applied for execution of the award dated June 5, 2018 passed by the learned sole arbitrator against the award-debtor by way of an execution petition being EC 597 of 2018. Such execution petition was considered on April 9, 2019 in presence of the award-debtor when the Court passed orders in terms of prayers (b) and (g) of the tabular statement. Such order required the award-debtor to submit an affidavit as to assets affirmed by a responsible officer of the award-debtor, preferably a Director of the award-debtor. Thereafter the award-debtor has applied by way of the present application seeking dismissal of the execution proceeding on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

5. The award-debtor is yet to be examined on oath as to whether any asset is lying within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court or not. Shew Kumar Nopany (supra) has held that, an application for examination of the award-debtor is not an application for execution but an application in aid of the execution. It has held as follows :-

"9...................We accept the contention of the respondent that an application for examination of a judgment-debtor is strictly not an application for execution. The different modes of execution for a money decree have been set out in Rule 30 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The modes of execution laid down is by attachment and sale of his property, or by the civil imprisonment of the judgment debtor, or by both. The examination of a judgment-debtor is not indicated as a mode of execution of a money decree." D.V.M. Construction and Ors. (supra) has held as follows:-

"4. A perusal of the aforesaid rule would clearly show that where there was a decree for payment of the money, the decree holder may apply to Court for an order that judgment-debtor be orally examined as to whether any or what debt are owning to the judgment-debtor and whether the judgment-debtor has any and what other property or means of satisfying the decree. The Court may make an order for attendance and examination of the said judgment-debtor and for production of any books or documents. In our opinion, the impugned orders passed by the trial Court for examination of the appellant No. 2 cannot be said to be either illegal or without jurisdiction. The question of transferring the execution proceeding would only arise upon examination of the appellant in Court on the question as to whether she holds any property within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and as to whether she has any further debts within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Without this question being answered in favour of the appellants i.e. to the effect that the entire property of the appellants is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the question of transferring the decree may not even arise at this stage."

6. Sundaram Finance Limited (supra) has held that, execution can be filed anywhere in the country where the decree can be executed and that, there is no requirement for obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court, which would have jurisdiction over the Tribunal proceedings. The proposition laid down in Sundaram Finance Limited (supra) does not help the award-debtor. The arbitral award can be executed as a decree of a Court in any Court in India without the requirement of obtaining a transfer of the decree from the Court which would have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings. In the present case, the award-holder is seeking to execute the arbitral award on the basis that, there are assets and properties of the award-debtor lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honble Court. It has to be conclusively established that, the award-debtor does not have any asset within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honble Court for this Honble Court to denude itself of jurisdiction over the execution proceeding. Such stage is yet to arrive in the facts of the present case. There is an order for examination of the award-debtor. On examination of the award-debtor, there is a possibility that, the award holder may discover assets and properties of the award-debtor lying within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court. In such an eventuality, it cannot be said that, this Court does not have jurisdiction to proceed with the execution proceeding. As held in Shew Kumar Nopany (supra) an application for execution of the award-debtor is not an application for execution but an application in aid of the execution.

7. In such circumstances, the prayer of the award-debtor that, the execution case be dismissed cannot be granted at this stage. On completion of the examination of the award holder on oath, if it transpires that, the award-debtor does not have any asset or property within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court, then obviously, the execution petition will be required to be dismissed. Such a situation is yet to arrive. At this stage it would be appropriate to post pone the adjudication of the issue of jurisdiction over the execution petition till after the completion of the examination of the award-debtor.

8. Old GA No. 1205 of 2019 New GA No. 1 of 2019 in EC No. 597 of 2018 is disposed of without any order as to costs.