C.R.No.3604 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3604 of 2011 Date of Order: 6.9.2011 M/s L.R. Builders Pvt Ltd .....Petitioner Vs. M/s Saini Motors and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Shekhar, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) By way of filing the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, petitioner has approached this court primarily for issuance of a direction to the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ludhiana seized of the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”) for extending the directions issued on 15.3.2011 whereby respondent Nos.1 to 4 had been restrained from alienating the disputed property. It was contended that the interim directions under Section 9 of the Act granted on 15.3.2011 were inadvertently not extended and thereafter the said Fast Track Court for non-grant of extension had ceased to function. This court while issuing notice of motion on 30.5.2011 has passed the following order: “Petitioner-M/s L.R. Builders Pvt Ltd, was desirous of purchasing land measuring 5343 square yards bearing municipal C.R.No.3604 of 2011 #2# numbers B-29-24, GT Road, Sherpur Chowk, Ludhiana, which was earlier mortgaged with respondent No.5-State Bank of India by owners/respondents 1 to 4. It is stated that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.16.46 crores towards the sale consideration and out of the said amount a sum of Rs.16 crores has gone towards meeting the mortgage debt in favour of respondent No.5-Bank. To support that contention, the counsel has referred to the relevant clauses of Tripartite agreement dated 3.1.2007 and agreement to sell dated 16.7.2007 entered into between the respective parties. It is also shown that the actual possession of the property in question was handed over to the petitioner. On the owners/respondents 1 to 4 having resiled from the terms of the contract, the petitioner is in the process of invoking arbitration clause. Pending the same, the petitioner moved an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) seeking an injunction to protect their interest. Learned counsel submits that in the application under Section 9 of the Act pending before the learned Additional District Judge (FTC) Ludhiana, notice was issued and respondents were directed not to negotiate with regard to the property in dispute with anybody till the next date. However, it is stated that on the next date the said direction could not be extended and thereafter the Court of Additional District Judge (FTC) stood abolished with the result that as on today the rights of the petitioner stand threatened. Notice of motion for 6.9.2011. Dasti as well. In the meanwhile the restraint order dated 15.3.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge (FTC) is extended till the next date of hearing.” As per office report, only respondent No.5-State Bank of India has been served whereas the service upon respondent Nos.1 to 4 by ordinary process as well as dasti summons is not complete. It is reported that the notices issued for service of respondent Nos.1 to 4 have not been received C.R.No.3604 of 2011 #3# back served or otherwise. An application bearing C.M.No.21496-CII of 2011 has been filed by the applicant/petitioner praying inter alia for grant of interim injunction for appointment of receiver etc. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly concedes that now the court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) has been re-constituted and the matter for consideration under Section 9 of the Act is listed for hearing on 12.9.2011 and he would be satisfied if the aforesaid interim order dated 15.3.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge (FTC) in terms of order dated 30.5.2011 passed by this Court is extended till 12.9.2011. He further does not press the prayer made in the application in order to present them before the appropriate forum. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of as infructuous with the direction that the interim direction dated 15.3.2011 passed in the application under Section 9 of the Act shall remain extended till the next date of hearing fixed before the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) i.e 12.9.2011. It is clarified that the learned court below shall be free to deal the matter in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation passed by this Court. Disposed of in the above terms. Copy of this order be given dasti on payment on usual charges. September 06, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE