3. As disputes arose between the parties, the matter was referred to the sole Arbitrator and the sole Arbitrator passed an award dated 8-10-2006. As per the award, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/was to be kept in Bank by the petitioner and interest on Rs.25,00,000/- along with royalty calculated at 5% of the net sales shall be paid on or before 30th June of every year to the respondent-decree holder during the time the petitioner manufactures the said drug in India. As the amounts as agreed and settled in the arbitration award said to have been not paid by the petitioner, the respondent-decree holder filed EP No.35 of 2007 which was closed subsequently on giving an undertaking that the petitioner will comply with the terms of the award. Thereafter, the respondent-decree holder filed EP No.51 of 2010 for payment of royalty at 5% on net sales of the drug for each financial year till 2016. The royalty as calculated by the petitioner-judgment debtor for the financial year 2009-10 is Rs.13,00,000/-. The EP was filed in February, 2011 for recovery of Rs.13,00,000/- for the financial year 2009-10 and warrant of attachment of immovable property for execution of the decree was also issued in February, 2011. 4. According to the petitioner-judgment debtor the royalty amount that was calculated was Rs.13,00,000/- as against which the petitioner has paid Rs.11,33,695/- vide cheque no.928681, dated 23-9-2010 and another sum of Rs.3,43,690/- vide cheque no.829586, dated 26-3-2011 and thus 5% royalty amount payable for the financial year 2009-2010 has been paid. 5. On a perusal of the impugned order it is evident that the learned Judge has not discussed anything about the amounts already paid and the amounts which are still liable to be paid by the petitioner-judgment debtor to the respondent. The impugned
