THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD C.M.A. No. 353 of 2011 Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) This C.M.A. is directed against the order dated 29.03.2011 in proceedings in Dis. No. 182 of 2011 in O.P. No. 80 of 1992 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. A few facts necessary for disposal of this appeal may be noted, and they run thus: The appellant and respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are partners in Lakshmikala Mandir Theatre. Disputes arose between them with regard to its administration and management. For resolution of the said disputes, the appellant filed O.P. No. 80 of 1992 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, praying to appoint an Arbitrator. Along with the O.P., the appellant filed an application in I.A. No. 1284 of 1992 praying to appoint a Receiver, which by order dated 19.01.1993 was allowed. Against the said order, the matter was carried in appeal in C.M.A. No. 123 of 1993. This Court by order dated 08.11.1994 disposed of the said appeal with certain directions. Thereafter, the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, by order dated 03.05.1997, allowed the main O.P. and appointed a retired District Judge, as Arbitrator, for resolution of the disputes between the parties. The Arbitrator so appointed resigned. Thereafter, former Judges of this Court were appointed, but they also resigned. Ultimately, by orders dated 27.01.2009 passed in I.A. No. 2778 of 2008, the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, appointed a former Judge of this Court. The Arbitrator, having conducted the arbitration proceedings, passed award dated 28.07.2010, which is subject-matter of dispute in O.P. No. 1039 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. While the award is subject-matter of dispute in the above, it appears that the Arbitrator has addressed letters dated 07.03.2010, 02.09.2010, 22.10.2010, 02.12.2010, 06.01.2011, 06.02.2011 and 24.03.2011 to the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Acting on the said letters, the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, passed order dated 29.03.2011, which reads as follows: With reference to the subject cited above Hon’ble Justice Bikshapathy has been relieved from his duties as Receiver. Whereas Sri Dandem Ram Reddy, Official Receiver, has been appointed as Receiver to run theatre Lakshmikala Mandir, Lothkunta, Alwal, R.R. District and he shall manage to run theatre by conducting open auction amongst all the partners in terms laid down in C.M.A. No. 123 of 1993 of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Whereas Sri Dandem Ram Reddy, Official Receiver shall obtain all the statement of accounts for relevant periods and shall file copies of each statement of account into the Court with regard to the management of the theatre. Whereas Sri Shailesh, Lease Holder is permitted to continue to run theatre till the auction is conducted by new Receiver Sri Dandem Ram Reddy, Official Receiver or within one month whichever is earlier. Your fee is fixed at Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) per month. Case stands posted to 29.03.2011. Questioning the above order, as noted above, the present appeal is filed. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order does not reveal as to under what provision of law it is passed. He submitted that once the Arbitrator passes an award, he becomes functus officio, and he has business to address letters to the Court, which has appointed him as Arbitrator, and much less the Court has any power whatsoever to entertain them and pass orders acting on such letters. He further submitted that the appellant filed writ petition in W.P. No. 8134 of 2001 seeking Writ of Prohibition, restraining the Arbitrator from interfering with the affairs of the Theatre, and this Court by orders dated 28.03.2011 passed in W.P.M.P. No. 10113 of 2011, restrained the Arbitrator from taking any steps pursuant to his letter dated 21.02.2011 or meddling with the affairs of the Theatre. However, the Court below, on the very next day, passed the order under appeal. He further submitted that the interim order passed by this Court restraining the Arbitrator from interfering with the affairs of the Theatre is still in force. Hence, he prayed that the order under appeal be set aside and the appeal be allowed. This Court while ordering notice before admission, granted stay of auction of the management of the Theatre on 22.04.2011, and further directed status quo to be maintained with regard to other aspects. The respondents having been served, except respondent No.4, all other respondents entered their appearance through their respective counsel. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents fairly admitted that once the Arbitrator passes and award, he has no right to address letters to the Court which appointed him as Arbitrator, concerning the arbitration proceedings, and much less there is any provision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which empowers the Court to pass the orders of the nature impugned in the appeal. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the counsel that the term of lease has long expired and that due to the interim orders passed by this Court, the Receiver is unable to conduct auction and further because of the status quo order, he is unable to collect the lease amount. The learned counsel for respondent No.6-Receiver submitted that the Receiver is not having any interest in the matter. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective respondents, including the counsel for the Receiver. Since there is no provision in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which enables the Court to pass orders, basing on the letters addressed by the Arbitrator, who having passed award became functus officio, and whose award is subject-matter of dispute in a separate O.P., as fairly admitted to by the learned counsel for the respective respondents, the order under appeal cannot be sustained, and accordingly we set aside the same. Since the Court, which passed orders appointing Arbitrator, has also become functus officio, and the award passed by the Arbitrator, as stated above, is subject- matter of dispute in separate O.P. on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, no application concerning the arbitration proceedings can be maintained before the Court below. Hence, the Court below is directed to return the application in I.A. No. 322 of 2011 to the party concerned. In view of the above, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the counsel appearing for the respective parties, in the interest of justice and in the best interest of the parties, have agreed for disposal of the appeal with the following directions: The order under appeal, passed by the Court below is set aside. The Court below is directed to return the application in I.A. No. 322 of 2011 to the party concerned as it has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. As the award passed by the Arbitrator is subject-matter of dispute in O.P. No. 1039 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the parties are liberty to file application seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner, for conducting auction as per the directions of this Court in C.M.A. No. 123 of 1993, dated 08.11.1994. And if any such application is filed, the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of one week. Respondent No.6-Reciever, who could not collect the lease amount due to status quo order of this Court, is now directed to collect and deposit the same to the credit of O.P. No. 1039 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, within a period of four weeks from today. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is disposed of. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. _____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 21st September, 2011 KSR