FAO No.128 of 2009 Page 1 of 2 UNREPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI FAO No.128/2009 Date of Decision: April 29, 2010 MADAN GOPAL MAHESHWARI PROP. OF M/S SHREE PAPER TRADERS ..... Appellant through Mr. Hitendra Kumar Nahata, Advocate versus P.K. GADODIA (PROP.) M/S P.K. GADODIA TRADERS & ORS ..... Respondents through Mr. Ravinder K. Rawat, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred against the order of Additional District Judge, Shri Chandra Bose dated February 06, 2009 dismissing the petition of the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant in his petition under Section 9 of the Act had prayed for a restraint order against the respondents, their agents, representatives, associates, from selling, alienating, transferring or creating any third party interest in respect of his immovable property – Plot No.892, Pocket-3, admeasuring 98 Sq. Meters situated FAO No.128 of 2009 Page 2 of 2 at IFC Gazipur, Delhi and from parting with the possession of the suit property to any third party till the disposal of the arbitration case titled as Madan Gopal Maheshwari Versus P.K.Gadodia. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the arbitrator has since given his award and that as the relief sought in the petition under Section 9 of the Act was only till the disposal of the arbitration case, the present appeal has become infructuous. The award that has been made by the arbitrator is in favour of the appellant and yet the appellant has filed the present appeal. He says that he has done so because he apprehends that the impugned order passed under Section 9 of the Act dismissing the prayer made therein can come in the way of his executing the award. In my view, the apprehension of the appellant is wholly misconceived. Any order passed under Section 9 of the Act is interim in nature. Even if the appellant had succeeded in obtaining the order as was prayed for in the petition under Section 9 of the Act, such an order would have enured for his benefit only till the passing of the award. Thereafter, in any case the parties were to be governed as per the award. For what has been noticed above, the appellant is free to move for execution of the award regardless of the order passed under Section 9 of the Act and the respondents if it so chooses may file objections to the award as per law. There is no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed. REKHA SHARMA, J. APRIL 29, 2010 ka