:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2008 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2008 ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 27 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 31 of 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 31 of 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 31 of 2008 Shankar Eknath Nimhan ..Appellant versus M/s. Sprinkle Realities & Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Kiran Bagalia i/b. Ms. Asha Bhambwani for the Appellant. Mr. S. S. Kanetkar for the Respondent No. 6. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 12TH DECEMBER, 2008. DATE : 12TH DECEMBER, 2008. DATE : 12TH DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. 2. This is an Appeal against the Order dated 15.5.2008 passed by the District Judge- 5, Pune, dismissing the appellant’s application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996. The appellant claims to be a former partner of the firm and further claim that the partnership has been dissolved. According to the appellant, therefore the other partners could not have started developing the property through the respondent No. 6, contrary :2: to the wishes of the appellant. The appellant therefore submits that the learned District Judge - 5, Pune, who heard the application under Section 9 ought to have granted injunction by way of an interim measure for protection of the property. 3. Having heard both the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent No. 6, it appears undisputed that the appellant has already preferred Special Civil Suit No. 1660 of 2008 in which the appellant has prayed for an interim injunction restraining the partners as well as the builder i.e. the respondent No. 6 herein from developing the property. Apparently, the trial court had also granted an injunction on 4.9.2008. 4. Having regard to the pendency of that suit, there is no reason why there ought to be an injunction under section 9 of the Arbitration Act in respect of the same construction arising out of the same Development Agreement. There is, therefore, no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed. Needless to say that the trial court trying the Special Civil Suit No. 1660 of 2008 would be entitled to deal with any application for an interim injunction and the suit itself on its own merits. :3: 5. In view of dismissal of the appeal, nothing survives in the civil application. The same also stands disposed of. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)