1 ps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Arbitration Petition No.851 of 2009 Akhlaq Ahmed Baitullah Khan & Others .. Petitioners v/s. Niyaz Ahmed Kalab Hussain & Ors.. ..Respondents Mr.M.S.Kadu for the Petitioner Mr.Mohammed Akram Bastiri for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr.A.A.Siddiqui for Respondent No.4 Mr.A. Solkar for Respondent Nos.8, 10, 11 and 12 CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 25th March, 2010 P.C. : 1. The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for diverse reliefs. Petitioners claim that their father Baitullal Khan was a partner with regard to the firm, pursuant to the Deed of Partnership dated 5.10.2001 and thereafter expired in the year 2005 and since then they have been getting their share in the partnership in accordance with paragraph 21. Petitioners have made a grievance that the partnership business of M/s. Popular Bakery is closed 2 and the respondent nos.1 to 3 are running the shop and selling general articles and that is how they have a desire to go in for arbitration so as to see that the firm is dissolved and proper shares are arrived at and accounts are settled. Learned Advocate Mr. Kaadu submitted that as of today no Arbitrator is appointed and the respondent nos.4, in this petition have already filed an application under Section 11 of the said Act for appointment of Arbitrator. Learned Advocate Mr. Kadu pressed for interim relief as set out in this petition. Learned Advocate for the respondent opposed the reliefs. 2. After having heard learned Advocates on both sides, I am inclined to observe that instead of recording finding in this petition as to whether the petitioners are partners in the firm, it would be proper if the said question is left to the Arbitrator, as in my view that would be a question to be decided by the Arbitrator. 3. In my view, at this juncture if respondent nos.1 to 3 are prevented from creating third party interest in regard to the bakery premises referred to in the body of the petition and be further restrained from parting possession of the suit premises, it would meet the ends of justice as of 3 today. This Order ofcourse will have to be continued till Arbitration Petiton filed by the respondent No.4 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is decided and one month thereafter. 4. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid the following order is passed: ORDER i) The respondent nos.1 to 3 are restrained by an Order of injunction from creating third party interest in regard to the premises referred to in the petition i.e. bakery premises. They are further restrained from parting with possession in regard to the bakery premises. This order shall remain in operation till petition filed by the respondent no.4 under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is decided, and one month thereafter . ii) It is clarified that respondent nos.1 to 3 are free to run the shop of selling general articles in the suit premises. iii)Merits of the matter are left open. Liberty is granted to the petitioner 4 to seek appropriate reliefs after the Arbitrator is appointed . [R.Y.GANOO, J.]