set aside the Arbitration awards passed by the second respondent, dated 26.08.2004. The prayer in the petition was to remit the matter back to a New Arbitrator as agreed between the parties or appoint some other person by the order of the Court. When the matter was taken up by the Execution Court, namely Principal District Court, Tuticorin, on 30.03.2016, there was no representation for the petitioner. He filed separate Arbitration Original Petitions, challenging the award. The Court passed an order stating that Foreign award is executable in nature. Against which, revisions were preferred before this Court. Thereafter, it was taken up to the Supreme Court. Pointing out the long pendency of E.As and Arbitration OPs for the very same cause in Arbitration O.P.Nos.222 & 223 of 2007, the petitions were dismissed, granting liberty the revision petitioner to workout his remedy in the pending Arbitration OPs. Against which, these revisions are preferred by this petitioner, stating that the Principal District Judge ought not to have dismissed the petition without taking note of the order passed by this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeals and Civil Revision Petitions.
