THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A. No. 308 of 2011 Oral judgment: This C.M.A. is directed against the order dated 14.02.2011 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SC and ST (POA) Act-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, in Arbitration O.P. No.1236 of 2010. The Court below, by reason of the order under appeal, while posting the matter to 28.02.2011, refused to grant interim injunction as prayed for. This Court, by order dated 13.04.2011, while ordering notice in the interim stay application, directed both the parties to maintain status quo. The respondent having received the notice, filed detailed counter along with vacate stay petition inter alia stating that he has constructed the building as per the agreement and he is willing to give the extra three flats to the appellant that fall to his share, but the appellant is not co-operating and to harass him, he has filed the present petition. He further stated that he is willing to give an undertaking that he will not alienate the three flats that fall to the share of the appellant. On the earlier occasion, when the matter was taken up, it was agreed by both the counsel for appointment of an Advocate practicing in this Court for resolution of the disputes between the parties through arbitration, and therefore, the matter was adjourned. Again when the matter was taken up, it was brought to the notice of the Court by the counsel for the respondent that the Kukatpally police at the instance of the appellant were harassing the respondent and forcing and coercing him to settle the dispute. This Court, therefore, directed the police to appear before the Court. Accordingly, they appeared before the Court. On the directions of this Court, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kukatpally filed affidavit stating that the appellant filed a private complaint against the respondent, and on the sane being referred by the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, they registered a case in Crime No. 573 of 2011, against the respondent for the offences of cheating and forgery under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 120-B IPC r/w Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. That after registering the crime, they have issued notice to the respondent under Section 41(1)(a) Cr.P.C. calling upon him to appear for investigation, along with the relevant record relating to the property, but the respondent refused to take the notice and did not turn up for investigation. He denied the contention of the respondent that he forced and coerced him to settle the matter with the appellant. In view of the complaint lodged by the appellant against the respondent, the relations between them are strained. However, it is submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent that they will pursue the remedy of arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause in the agreement. In view of the above stand taken by the counsel for the appellant and the respondent, pending initiation and disposal of the arbitration proceedings, and to protect the interest of the appellant, this Court directed the respondent, as agreed to by him, to file an affidavit that he will not alienate the share of the appellant. Accordingly, the respondent filed affidavit dated 29.06.2011 undertaking as follows: … I reiterate and undertake that I will neither alienate nor create any charge against the Flat Nos. 101, 102 in the First Floor and 201 in the Second Floor in the Sri Sai Venkatadri Nilayam, situated at Snehapuri Colony, Bobbuguda village, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District, till the finalization of the disputes between the parties. The above undertaking given by the respondent is placed on record, and it is directed that the respondent shall not alienate or create any charge against Flat Nos. 102 and 102 on the First Floor and Flat No. 201 on the Second Floor in the above building in question, till the finalization of the disputes between the parties. In view of this order, there is no need to continue the status quo order, for if the same is continued, the respondent who has invested money in the construction of the building will suffer. Hence, the status quo order passed by this Court on 13.04.2011 is vacated. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is disposed of. No costs. ______________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J. Dated: 30th June, 2011 KSR