IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: July 3, 2009 F.A.O. No.36 of 2006 Jagjeet Singh and others …Petitioner Versus Unitop Apartments and Builders Ltd. Ludhiana …Respondents *-*-* CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sham Lal Bhalla, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. A.K.Bansal, Advocate, and MS. Ranjana Shahi, Advocate, for the respondents. T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE This appeal arises out of an order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the learned District Judge, Ludhiana in a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 whereby the Court below has restrained the appellants herein from damaging or demolishing or causing any loss to the building standing over land measuring14 kanals 3 marlas described in the petition and forming the subject matter of the dispute between parties pending the disposal of arbitral proceedings by the Arbitrator. The appeal was listed for hearing alongwith Arbitration Petition No.124 of 2006. As the fate of the appeal rested entirely on whether this Court allows the said petition and appoints a sole Arbitrator or dismisses the same, learned counsel for the parties fairly conceded that in case this Court allows the petition under Section 11 of the Act, the present appeal shall have to fail in which event, the appellants in this appeal had no reason or justification to meddle with the F.A.O. No.36 of 2006 property or create any third party right pending disposal of the arbitral proceedings. In case, however, the petition for appointment of Arbitrator is dismissed, the order in appeal shall have to be set aside as in the absence of any arbitral proceedings there would be no justification for granting any relief under Section 9 of the Act. By an order of even date, I have today allowed the application under Section 11 of the Act filed by the respondent-Company and appointed Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldeep Singh, former Judge, Supreme Court of India, as a sole Arbitrator in the matter. That being so, the present appeal restraining the appellants herein from damaging or demolishing or causing any loss to the building constructed over the disputed piece of land shall have to fail not only because the entire dispute shall have to be resolved by the Arbitrator before the Appellants can claim the right to deal with the property but also because the learned counsel for the appellants had fairly conceded that the fate of the present appeal would depend upon the result in the connected petition. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. July 3, 2009 ( T.S.THAKUR ) `Kalra CHIEF JUSTICE 2