1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1293 OF 2007 (M/s. Rana Construction Co. vs. Hasnate Taheriyah Fidayyian (Trust)) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. AUGUST 22, 2008. Heard Shri Kukday, Advocate for the applicant. I find that after taking recourse to clause 9 of the agreement between the parties, the present applicant obtained adjudication from Architect in his favour and when he wanted to execute it in execution proceedings, learned District Judge has passed an order observing that execution is premature as there is no executable award until and unless there is reference to the institution of Architects as per Clause 9 (within 28 days). Shri Kukday, Advocate has also challenged said finding of District Judge in this application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is apparent that the applicant is aggrieved by the finding recorded by the District 2 Judge and until and unless said finding is set aside, recourse to Section 11 of the Act is not possible. The said finding of learned District Judge needs to be challenged in appropriate proceedings. Shri Kukday, Advocate is seeking time to file such proceedings and he is also requesting time to obtain instructions about the present MCA. After the rejection of request for grant of time, he requests that MCA should be kept pending awaiting decision in the proceedings assailing the findings recorded by the District Judge. I am not inclined to keep the matter pending. MCA No. 1293 of 2007 in present facts is premature. The same is dismissed as such with liberty to the applicant to approach again, if circumstances so warrant. JUDGE *GS.